Violence can be prevented
Monday, 23 November 2009
Does child abuse and bullying lead to more violence?

The following quote is from Dave Cullen’s book “Columbine”. 

"There's no evidence that bullying led to murder, but considerable evidence it was a problem at Columbine High." (p.158)  

This should raise the question what constitutes evidence that bullying could lead to murder or that it could be a contributing cause. I have concluded that I can state for a fact that there are multiple contributing causes to violence and that two of the strongest contributing causes are child abuse and bullying. I consider these two conclusions to be well proven by many academic researchers and it can be confirmed by most reasonable laypersons if they think it through. Just think about times that you may have endured bullying or abuse and wanted to get even. You may have gotten over it but if you had to put up with much more of it do you think you would have gotten over it so easy. The academic researchers who support these conclusions include James Garbarino, Ellen deLara, Alice Miller, Dorothy Otnow Lewis, Joanne Scaglione, Cornelia B. Wilbur, Lonnie Athens and many more. They have done extensive research to indicate that children who are abused as a child are much more likely to be violent as an adult. There is an enormous amount of data to back up these conclusions yet there are still many high profile people that raise doubts about these conclusions. There are some high profile people with degrees that have disputed this claim; however I have serious doubts about their credibility and I suspect the majority of academics that study the subject also do. 

That doesn’t mean the experts are in agreement about all the specifics of psychology. This clearly isn’t true but when it comes to the simple question does violence lead to violence the answer should be yes. When it comes to more specific conclusions about psychological conditions there seems to be a lot of disagreement about various psychoses like psychopaths, Schizophrenia, multi-personality disorder, road rage, roid rage and many other conditions; however if you read some of the material about most if not all these subjects they won’t contradict the conclusions I have stated above. This indicates that even though there is still further research that needs to be done about some of the specifics there is enough information available to know that by preventing child abuse and bullying there can be an enormous amount of progress made to reduce other violence that follow after small problems escalate to big ones. 

Ironically Dave Cullen provides some information that contradicts his claims that there is no evidence that bullying led to murder. This may involve looking at the work of some other sources other than the ones he cited though. Dave Cullen cited some work by Dr. Robert Hare that abusive upbringing doesn't create psychopaths but it does make it worse. Dr. Hare also indicated that Psychopaths never develop empathy in the first place. (p.241-2) If this is true then the violence from bullying could have also been a contributing factor and almost certainly was; however it may also indicate that a closer look at the early care that Eric Harris received as an infant and toddler may have some influence on the subject. There was insufficient information in his book to confirm or refute this but it is implied. Dave Cullen’s book has been portrayed as the most credible and comprehensive book on columbine debunking many myths about Columbine. For the most part this is accurate he does a very good job debunking a lot of the false assumptions about Columbine; However this one exception is an important one. There have been a lot of stories about wide spread bullying at Columbine and there has also been a lot of stories about denial of this and Cullen is only making the denial worse. Cullen backs up the downplaying of bullying as a contributing cause by pointing out that in the tapes made by Klebold and Harris they don’t complain about being bullied quite the opposite they bragged about doing the bullying. This is not surprising but if he checked with better psychologists like Garbarino he might have found that denial of abuse isn’t uncommon. The victims of Bullying prefer not to think of themselves as being victims therefore they deny it and resort to bullying other to prove something to themselves. In fact they do talk about being angry at the world, if their not angry about bullying then what are they angry about. The tapes do seem to state they are angry about a lot of trivial things but I suspect that is just because they can’t express themselves very well. This could result from denial and other emotional problems which they obviously had. The fact that Cullen does such a good job debunking many of the myths at Columbine is what makes him seem more credible and for this reason it is more important to correct the mistakes he made. In many cases first hand points of views tend to be more biased since the person may have a interest to protect but in this case I think Brooks Brown may have done a better job than Cullen. Perhaps it would be better to look at “No easy answers: The truth behind death at Columbine” as the comprehensive look at Columbine.  

I suspect that if I checked with other experts I might find that many believe that psychopaths are created more by nurture than nature. In fact I suspect many researchers will say that most of these disorders including Schizophrenia, multi-personality disorder are created partly as a result of abuse as a child and exasperated in many cases by bullying.  I suspect this is also true for road rage or roid rage. Road rage is just like any other kind of anger in a stressful situation and people who do a better job dealing with their anger are much less likely to succumb to road rage. Roid rage is the result of steroids. This means in order to have it you have to start by taking illegal drugs. This is almost certainly much more common among people who have to prove themselves perhaps in many cases because they are reacting to a history of child abuse and bullying. Then they respond by deciding they aren’t going to take it any more and they start muscling up. Michael Kay Green may be a clear example of this. He had a troubled relation ship with his father first and then he may have become a paranoid schizophrenic who used steroids before he became a rapist and killer. This is just one of many cases where the child abuse and bullying came first then came one psychosis or another.   

Declining to put more emphasis on this is like trying to teach calculus without going through basic arithmetic first; however that is what many people from the Mass Media do anyway. The Mass Media often portrays any one of these causes of violence as the one and only cause and often ignores the most important contributing causes. Many researchers may realize that child abuse and bullying are leading causes of violence later in life but when the subject is explained to the public it is rarely ever made as clear as it should be. In some cases it is actually refuted. In order to get this point through to the public it needs to be repeated on a regular basis the same way they now repeat the quest for justice by punishing people on a regular basis. In fact this is actually more important since it could do a lot more to prevent violence. If punishment as a deterrent worked half as good as the advocates of this solution claim it would have worked much better by now since they have been doing it for a long time. That doesn’t mean they have been doing it consistently for a long time that is also a problem that needs to be addressed. Punishment in the past has often been politically motivated.  

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

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


Posted by zakherys at 12:04 PM EST
Updated: Tuesday, 24 November 2009 1:23 PM EST
Thursday, 19 November 2009
Wikipedia Censorship

The Mass Media, The Government, Wikipedia and other institutions are withholding information from the public about preventing violence or presenting it in a way that will not be effective.


The Mass Media and the government are the worst perpetrators of censorship but I am focusing mainly on Wikipedia on this page because they may be easier in the short term to influence and they are in a good position to set a good example for the government and the media.
My objective isn't to discredit Wikipedia but to point out flaws so that they can be fixed. Wikipedia is a new institution edited by the public so it is a work in progress and there is good reason to believe that these problems can be fixed if they are addressed before they become institutionalized.

The only reputation I can ruin is my own and I don't expect you to take my word for this without confirmation. My recommendation is that you try editing Wikipedia on a subject of your choice and develop your own opinion.

Wikipedia does have problems with censorship but it is also worth noting that they are doing a lot to get a lot of information to the public that other institutions aren't.

This doesn't mean we should look the other way when they are part of the problem though. The most powerful institutions should be held to the highest standards.

If Wikipedia addresses these problems they can be a major part of the solution rather than part of the problem but first they have to get over internal bickering and set up rules that prevent special interests from anonymously disrupting solutions.

There should be preferential treatment for scholars that have studied the problem over political points of view. In many sections of Wikipedia they already have that where there is little or no political opposition but unfortunately that isn't the case on the sections that address violence. In some cases they are allowing gun rights advocates to present their point of view and censoring points of view based on work from qualified academics. If anything it should be the other way around although I don't think that is the way to go either. They should present both points of view fairly. There should be more input from researchers who have looked into the subject and it should be linked up to the related articles so that if anyone wants to find out about prevention they can find it easily when looking at an article about a specific incident like Columbine.

I have Googled Wikipedia censorship and found that there are many other people who also believe that Wikipedia has problems with censorship although I'm not sure I agree with all their motives and reasons. In some cases they probably have legitimate complaints but in others the people complaining may be worse than Wikipedia in my opinion. Discretion is advised even with my concerns.


The strongest evidence for censorship or lack of censorship on Wikipedia or anywhere else on the subject of violence prevention is the quality of their work. If they did the best job possible that implies there is little or no censorship but if you look at the work of some of the most qualified experts and find that they did a much better job than Wikipedia and that there is an effort to minimize improvements this implies either censorship, incompetence or some other problem. Check the work and find out for yourself.

To read more about this see the following page:

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

 


Posted by zakherys at 12:23 PM EST
Friday, 13 November 2009
War isn't the answer!!

Then what is??

 

First of all it is true that war doesn’t solve problems. War is about the absolute absence of solutions and all out fighting and destruction. It is often based on the implied assumption that there is an enemy and the enemy is responsible for all our problems; therefore if we just destroy the enemy all our problems will go away. This assumption is never stated but it is implied by past activity. This assumption is totally false. In order to arrive at solutions the first thing that has to occur is that the fighting and destruction has to come to an end. The best thing I can think of to say about war is that if there is a power so cruel and destructive like Hitler then that power has to be destroyed first before the real solutions can be implemented. However in hindsight it is always easy to look back and see that if the appropriate actions were taken before Hitler rose to power then Hitler could have been stopped without war. Then perhaps the best thing I can think of about war is that they demonstrate things that we could learn from so that we don’t repeat our mistakes. If so this is at best a benefit that comes at far to high a price.

 

The real solutions come after wars come to an end or better yet they could begin in the future before wars begin if problems are addressed before they get to big. Real programs to solve problems are usually education based. Programs like the Peace Corps., Seeds of Peace, Habitat for Humanity etc. are much more productive and more likely to bring about solutions. They may run into problems and in the past they have been heavily criticized for inefficiency but these problems can be overcome once they are recognized and corrected. Unlike military “solutions” there is little or no need for secrecy in these programs that is part of the reason they have been heavily criticized in the past. When these programs have problems they are less likely to be hidden then when the problems are found they are more likely to be corrected. In the military when there is a problem there is often an excuse to cover it up since secrecy is routine therefore problems are often allowed to get much worse.

 

In the long run the most effective way to stop wars is to stop the causes of wars. One of the biggest unrecognized causes of war is child abuse. There are many cultures where there are epidemic rates of child abuse. This provides an ample supply of angry violent people that can be led into war easily by their leaders.

 

Another problem is that leaders are rarely held accountable to their own people. Even in countries that are considered democratic accountability is often insufficient since the public often doesn’t know what their government is doing nor do they know how to hold their government accountable. The way to address this is a massive education effort to make all the information available to the public that they need to hold their leaders accountable. The people also need to learn how to set up a system to interact with their government representatives on a regular basis. This information needs to be organized in the most effective way possible according to subject. Then each subject needs to have an accurate description of the basics which should never be forgotten. Governments are involved in decisions about every thing that influences the public whether we like it or not therefore we need to understand these subjects. One of the more obvious examples where people overlook the basics is gambling which has to be fixed in favor of the house in order for the house to survive and profit. If the public understood this there wouldn’t be much if any gambling industry. This may seem trivial when it comes to preventing wars but it is one of many small social problems that create unrest that can build up and become a much bigger problem.

 

In order to stop wars the social injustices that leads to war need to be addressed. There are many class conflicts that often lead to greater problems. These are often about money or business. There needs to be a better way to address these problems before they escalate. The most effective way in the long run is to improve the education system for everyone. This shouldn’t be influenced by race, creed or sex. In many cases the lower classes need a better education to understand their options and more peaceful ways to accomplish their goals. The upper classes need a better education that encourages them to understand other cultures and they shouldn’t be taught that they have some automatic birth right that makes them better than they are. This isn’t new and a lot has been done to improve this but there are still more subtle ways of coming to the conclusion that they are more deserving than others often by omitting certain facts.

 

In the long term in order to avoid war we need a society that has true justice that starts at an early age and is maintained throughout life. This means giving people equal opportunities and allowing them to participate in society and receive equal benefits for their work from the beginning. In many cases it may involve looking out for the best interest of some people even if those people don’t know how to express their own views well. These people may need a better education but if they don’t get it and they see that they aren’t getting a fair shake they may become disenfranchised and rebel. This may not seem rational but it still happens. By educating them and allowing them to have a fair shake this can be avoided. They shouldn’t have to fight or argue every step of the way to get what is rightfully theirs. The more time spent fighting or suing the less time there is for productive activity for everyone.

The three most important things that can be done to avoid war in the long term is:

1 Stop epidemic levels of child abuse worldwide.

2 Provide education to everyone in the most effective way possible.

3 Provide equal opportunity and real democracy to everyone.

 

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

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

 


Posted by zakherys at 11:23 AM EST
Updated: Tuesday, 24 November 2009 1:13 PM EST
Friday, 6 November 2009
Espionage isn't intelligent

The use of the term intelligence for espionage information has always been improper but since it has been repeated so often many people don’t seem to realize it. This isn’t new but regardless of how long the word has been used improperly it is still wrong. It gives the people the impression that the most intelligent way to behave is to keep massive amounts of information that the public needs to make important decisions secret. In order for a democracy to work the public has to be involved in the decision making process. This participation should be based on decisions made with access to any relevant information needed for any given subject including war. In the past there have been many wars that were started based on false assumptions given to the public by their governments. The justification for this has often been the security of the country yet after the facts come out years later it has often turned out not to be true. The use of this term is also often done based on the assumption that the most important aspect about preserving democracy involves fighting. This assumption has always been false as well. While fighting has often been necessary to protect democracy the most important way of preserving and strengthening democracy has always involved educating the public in the most effective and accurate way possible.

 

Not only is espionage not intelligent but it isn’t efficient either. There has been an enormous amount of effort to spread false information to deceive the other side and the inevitable result is the other side does the same to you. This effectively maintains a system where both sides indirectly participate in actions that prevent anyone including themselves from having access to the information they need to make intelligent decisions. This creates an enormous amount of wasted time and effort for everyone. There is no way to know just how much of a waste this is but there should be no doubt that it is big and the results are far from intelligent quite the opposite it is downright stupid.

 

 

The most effective way to put an end to the assumption that espionage is the most effective way of solving problems may involve focusing on the education and non military solutions to build better relations with other countries. This could include more emphasis on programs like Peace Corps, the Marshal Plan and International Habitat for Humanity. There shouldn’t be much if any need for secrecy for these programs since they aren’t designed to infringe on the rights of others. Unfortunately there still is a controversy therefore there should be a better education program to inform the public how effective they are.

 

Another way to put an end to the reliance on espionage is to advance democracy worldwide and perhaps establishing more Truth and reconciliation commissions or just Truth commissions that are designed to get the truth out. These should be thought out carefully before they are begun again. Simply having a Truth and reconciliation commission isn’t good enough it is important to get the details right ahead of time on how they will be run. The public needs to be in on the decision making process. They need to be prepared for the type of things that will inevitably come out. There has to be careful consideration of what type of incentives people are given to come out with the truth. This shouldn’t involve allowing people to be in a position where they can continue to infringe on the rights of others. In order for this to work it would almost certainly have to have some form of compensation for those who have been wronged when ever possible. If it isn’t possible the most important thing may be exposing the truth so that disaster will no linger repeat themselves and the public will have the information they need to make their decisions properly. A truth commission isn’t something that should be rushed into unless it is a small scale one that could serve as another test case. Even then it should be done carefully perhaps with a limited scope on a certain subject. The appropriate set up for further truth commissions should be based on a close look at past truth commissions and the problems they ran into. For example the most famous one is the one ran by South Africa. This wound up leaving a large military force free without any training except for military purposes and they became mercenaries many of whom wound up working for Executive Outcomes. These people were later suspected of involvement in additional atrocities. Future truth commissions that leave soldiers out of jail need to involve retaining and possible counseling if necessary.

 

There also needs to be more education about simple semantics. This is only one of many words the public routinely uses improperly simply because it is repeated over and over again. Another common example is fundamentalism. The word Fundamental means basic. The way many religious people use it implies that every thing in the bible is correct. The statement that the bible is correct is not a very basic statement since it applies to a large book with lots of more basics within it. In order to find the basics of the bible you need to look inside at the details one at a time but that is another subject.

 

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

 

 

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


Posted by zakherys at 1:05 PM EST
Updated: Wednesday, 18 November 2009 12:31 PM EST
Friday, 30 October 2009
Richard Ramirez

Richard Ramirez is a very good example of a Mass Murder where research has uncovered many of the leading contributing causes to violence including an abusive childhood where he was badly abused in a strict Christian household. This was followed by bullying and later by violent couching from his cousin Mike. It would be foolish to base conclusions on just one case but this case shows many traits that are common among many violent crimes as well as some that are very rare. Unfortunately the traits that are rare are the ones that get the most attention and the common traits are the ones that are the most credible.

 

Ramirez was badly abused as a child starting with the abuse he received from his own father that was passed down through the generations. He was later subject to bullying by other students. His behavior was kept in check by strict Christian disciplinarian methods. When the discipline was no longer maintained the anger from his childhood was still there and the control was no longer available. He received what Lonnie Athens referred to as violent couching from his cousin Mike who was a Viet Nam vet. Mike told him stories about Viet Nam and Ramirez was present when Mike killed his wife. The strict disciplinarian methods that were used on Ramirez are very common among may religions and they do keep people in control to a point but they also teach people to deal with there problems through violence. These methods have a tendency to reward anyone who accepts discipline without question in many cases. This means that people often don’t check facts and maintain old beliefs without many if any to find and correct mistakes. In some cases including Ramirez it leads people to adopt fanatical beliefs. The belief in Satan is very common among Christians. This set the ground work for when Ramirez encountered another person who adopted Satanism. At the time Ramirez was going through a period where he doubted the existence of a benevolent God which wasn’t surprising since he was abused in the name of a God who uses the treat of violence to keep people in line. By adopting Satanism Ramirez may have been switching to the opposite extreme when he changed environments and wound up in a culture where there was very little control and the only way he leaned to deal with tough situations was through violence. This could be similar to the enemy of my enemy is my friend mentality. When Ramirez was raised in a violent home to worship Christ and hate Satan he may have eventually come to the conclusion that if Christians weren’t so friendly as they claim he might as well go to the other side.

 

There is also evidence of denial when it comes to his own abusive childhood. Philip Carlo investigated his childhood for his book and found a history of abuse but in an interview Ramirez claims he wasn’t abused:

 

RAMIREZ: Right, in society today. I believe that-uh-tension in the workplace, and also lack of jobs, and the way families are-are brought up, and child abuse, sure-it's like a recipe. Drugs, poverty, child abuse-all this creates angry individuals. And, then again, lust killers-people tend to lump all serial killers in the same category, but there are different types of serial killers, as you know….

 

CARLO: Okay. Do you think that child abuse has anything to do with the development of serial killers

 

RAMIREZ: Oh, it has everything to do with development of all malfunctions in the adult life. Child abuse, in its many forms, can-uh-produce many forms of-uh-life's miseries and grief’s as an adult, you know? Mental disorders and such. Me myself, I've never experienced child abuse.

 

Ramirez seems to understand that child abuse is a contributing cause for many serial killers yet he denies it happened to him. There are several researchers including James Garbarino, Dorothy Otnow Lewis and Lonnie Athens that have found this denial to be common place.

 

There is also a lot of panic and jumping to conclusions that went on during the summer when he went on his rampage. The damage done by the panic wasn’t as bad as the murders but it was still bad enough. This is semi routine when the media hypes up a serial killer. In the case of Ramirez it is hard to deny that this is one of the cases where there really was a serious threat to society out there but the way society responded to it in the short term didn’t’ do much to stop future crimes nor did it help solve other problems. One thing that is often overlooked is that when the public becomes obsessed with one subject they fail to address many other subjects and panic about the one subject they are obsessed with. On the other hand a high profile incident does often spur people to act on it. This doesn’t mean it involves activity that is as rational or effective as it could or should be but it is a start. In many cases including mass murders after the panic dies down and the public looses interest some researchers continue to study the problem and find the real solutions. The problem is that when the public stops paying attention they are no longer too concerned about solving the problem. The trick is to convince the public to pay attention in a calm controlled manner and try to set up a system that maintains programs that solve problems.

 

http://www.philipcarlo.com/index.php?page=interviews

 

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

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

 

 


Posted by zakherys at 2:56 PM EDT
Updated: Friday, 13 November 2009 11:35 AM EST
Tuesday, 27 October 2009
Obsession du jour

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
Friday, 23 October 2009
Rejoice We Have Justice Rejoice

There is much more emphasis on obtaining justice for crimes after they occur and very little emphasis on obtaining justice in everyday things that leads up to crimes especially abuse and bullying. This should raise the question are we more concerned about justice or vengeance. The quick easy answer is to say with conviction that it is justice we seek. A closer look might not indicate this is true. It is important to remember that in order to obtain true justice we need to prevent or minimize these crimes. The most effective way to do that is to study the causes of crime and programs to prevent them. In the future we should rejoice more when we find the case than when we apply strict punishment. This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t send violent criminals to jail of course. In the short term this is the only way to stop them from committing crimes but in the long term it is much more important to address the abuse that leads up to major crimes. 

The emotional anger does more to hamper true prevention efforts than it does to help prevent crimes. There are way too many people expressing joy when they convict someone of a serious crime without realizing they are passing up an opportunity to learn from the events and prevent future crimes. Many of these people are also denying some of the most important contributing causes either to protect people they don’t think should be held responsible or to eliminate any consideration of mitigating circumstances. These biases are one of the biggest obstacles that need to be overcome in order to effectively prevent violence.  

This is especially bad when it comes to high profile cases. When the media gets a hold of a subject and hypes it up and the people get excited without looking close at the details there is the greatest tendency to jump to the wrong conclusions. This is especially true when they start hyping up how good the victim is or how cruel the perpetrator is. This is clear in the cases of mass murderers where there is an enormous amount of panic then when the mass murder is caught there is an enormous amount of relief. What goes unnoticed by many is all the other issues that are ignored while there is a great panic going on. In this case if you think about it even the worst mass murders commit a small number of murders compared to the amount of lives lost from many other causes. If you look at the coverage about mass murderers when they are caught there as often a big celebration. The cops are often looked at as heroes even if they ran an incompetent investigation and lucked out.

In many cases there is more concern about the appearance of justice than there is in justice itself. This is clearest if you look at the many cases that have proven to be wrongful convictions. The authorities often try to back up convictions even after there is an enormous amount of evidence that they have convicted the wrong person. There seem to be many people in the justice system that arte more concerned about protecting there own reputation and the authority of the system than to make sure they convict the right person. This attitude leads to a corrupt system that only seems credible if you don’t look to closely. The closer you look at some of these cases the less just the system seems. In order to fix this the first thing that needs to happen is that we need to stop pretending that the system is working properly and we need to stop relying on emotional reactions to rush to judgment. 

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-and-death-penalty 

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

 

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

 


Posted by zakherys at 1:17 PM EDT
Updated: Monday, 26 October 2009 2:14 PM EDT
Thursday, 22 October 2009
Violence as entertainment

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
Saturday, 17 October 2009
Denial: Tell me something good I need to hear something good

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
Friday, 9 October 2009
Setting a better example for the Mass Media

 

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

Newer | Latest | Older

« November 2009 »
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30
You are not logged in. Log in
Entries by Topic
All topics  «