Interesting news report

[Pond James Pond]

I don't know. Do you? Are there really solid studies supporting that hypothesis? Are there studies contradicting that hypothesis?

Interesting. With my example above you claim not to know, yet in the news report you confidently dismiss it, even though the premise is much the same: that exposure to violence can beget violence. Most obvious difference? The latter involves firearms.

In any case I've found studies online that point to children exposed to violence later being more likely to be violent themselves and I've found reports of how people who have served in war-zones show higher levels of violent behaviour once back in regular society. So it would seem that exposure to it, can make it more likely.

That's one for Glenn.

He's touched on the question --

My reference to video games was to highlight the irony that though I've repeatedly seen people attribute violence causing traits to video games on TFL I don't remember those notions ever being resisted as enthusiastically as this topic has been.
Personally, I've seen video games more as a release of tensions rather than a cause of them, but that is only my personal experience of playing them after a crappy day at work...

So if the problem is "violence," how do you keep are area "clean" of violence, other than incarcerating violent people? And we know that current trends are heading away from incarceration of violent offenders, not toward more incarceration.

So what's left? Ahhh -- that's when "violence" suddenly (miraculously) again becomes "gun violence," and the epidemiological "solution" is to clean the area -- of guns. Which, of course, are not and never have been the problem, but they make a convenient scapegoat and whipping boy.

Yet, if incarceration is the response it is because the offence has already happened: prevention fail.

Did you watch the video? The talk was not about amnesties, gun control laws at all. It was about community members acting as mediators and negotiators for their community so that when they hear of situations developing. And, according to the interviewees it worked. No whipping boys.
To be frank, you're turning this into a gun issue, not the video.

Again, are you so against this because it is something Antis have talked about?

Just because they want to use it to move onto guns, it doesn't mean that the initial premise that violence is a social behaviour that can influence the behaviour of those exposed to it is automatically false.
Now letting or preventing anti-gun folks then exploiting that to their own ends is a different story.

Watch the video and note what the last speaker talks about: during his experiences in gang culture he had witnessed one altercation that had, with the resulting tit-for-tat reprisals eventually almost 1000 people died.

1000. From one argument.
Not worth trying to prevent? Using words and mediation? Seems worth a go to me.

Is violent behavior spread by casual contact or is more intimate contact required?

Watch the video.

If this was a study only about the City of Chicago and so noted, then it could be representative. On the other hand, if the sample is only from Chicago and applied to the US (and supposed to also be representative of cities like Amarillo, Boise, Jacksonville, Virginia Beach, Phoenix, ...) then it is a sham study and should reflect on the researcher and their ethics.

So, coming from someone who should know, there may well be something in it. We don't know that they didn't perform new studies in those areas, an even if they didn't that doesn't mean that the results in Chicago itself were not valid, positive and effective.

Unlike an actual disease, which simply is, violence is a choice. And it cannot be "cured" it can only be prevented, or it can be met.

Which is the entire point of the report. That, with people from the community intervening in a controlled way, the violence can be averted because the would-be actors choose not to escalate the situation.

 

[zukiphile]

Interesting. With my example above you claim not to know, yet in the news report you confidently dismiss it, even though the premise is much the same...

Emphasis added. Your antecedent could refer to more than one idea in this conversation.

What was dismissed was the notion that violence is communicated in the same manner as a disease. He didn't dismiss the idea of people being less sensitive to violence after exposure, but asked about your degree of certainty.

It was about community members acting as mediators and negotiators for their community so that when they hear of situations developing. And, according to the interviewees it worked. No whipping boys.
To be frank, you're turning this into a gun issue, not the video.

To paraphrase an hilarious aphorism, I carry a gun because a mediator is too heavy.

It's possible that people afford the disease model some scrutiny because they see better, more coherent explanations of peoples' behavior. I land closer to 44AMP's critique.

There is, I think, a crucial factor being overlooked.

FREE WILL

Unlike an actual disease, which simply is, violence is a choice. And it cannot be "cured" it can only be prevented, or it can be met.

No one ever stopped having cancer or a cold by simply deciding to do otherwise. There is no 12 step program for not getting influenza.

Beating, robbing or shooting a person, or drinking too much or lighting a cigarette are all the result of a person deciding to act, a mechanism very unlike any real disease.

That's a distinction many people hold genuinely and at least as reasonable as "There are studies that show...".

 

[K_Mac]

Pond, I can't get the video to play, and don't have time to mess with it now. I did read the article/transcript. I agree that with the premise that violence spreads in clusters much like a disease. One doesn't have to be an epidemiologist to recognize that. I also think your premise that violence begets violence is undeniable. To claim that violent behavior in areas where violence is endemic is simply free will, is just too simple. Whether violence is a disease or not also doesn't change the need for specific treatment to deal with the underlying issues.

 

[zukiphile]

I agree that with the premise that violence spreads in clusters much like a disease.

What doesn't cluster like a disease? Language, wealth, poverty, religious affiliation, political affiliation, accent, manner of dress, choice in automobile, diet, educational level, savings rate, ...

If human behaviors generally exist in clusters "much like a disease" what is the analytical value of the disease model?

 

[K_Mac]

If human behaviors generally exist in clusters "much like a disease" what is the analytical value of the disease model?

I don't care what a model is called. If "disease" offends call it what you will. There certainly is enormous analytical value in the study of violence in specific cultures.

 

[zukiphile]

I don't care what a model is called. If "disease" offends call it what you will. There certainly is enormous analytical value in the study of violence in specific cultures.

"Disease" isn't offensive. It both may be wrong in some important respects and so general that it doesn't add anything valuable to treat it as an epidemiological matter.

That doesn't mean the work described as done by the "Chico" fellow has less value. Teaching people the etiquette of dispute resolution has tremendous value. That's an educational task, not a medical one.

Chico Tillmon remembers the first time he saw a dead man.

"I was eight years old, and my mum had sent me to the mailbox. As I approached, I saw a guy being robbed for his Boombox. And the guy was killed right in front of me.

Violence is only one facet of this problem. Had this person witnessed a clearly justified shooting of a person committing a clearly prohibited act, we might fret less about violence as if it were communicable like the common cold.

Instead, what is described is a murder committed to steal a radio. It could be just as useful to note the communicable character of theft, disregard for property rights, or rule of law. Yet each of these seem at least as well described as education matters ordinarily established in childhood. Don't take your neighbor's pencil, don't run in the hallway, don't walk on "Don't walk".

Assimilating people into an orderly culture is a laudable goal. However, an analytical model that disregards the existence and consequence of individual choices is the frequent companion of government policy that many of us find ill considered.

 

[Skans]

The proliferation of violence correlates much more directly with the economic and societal enabling of fatherless families. When it took a mother and father to economically safeguard children from starvation and exploitation, gang violence, murder, rape mass murders and other violent activities were nearly non-existent. There was a time when being a "bastard" was something no mother wanted for their children.

On an overall basis, it simply takes the economic unit of a mom + dad and the goal of a higher economic status for the entire family unit to dissuade violent behavior especially in young males.

Until our society economically, socially and politically stops promoting fatherless families we will have high rates dispair and violence. Eventually, we will either figure this out and go back to the way things were pre-1960's, or we will lose our way of life alltogether to a new regieme who will take us way back to a much harsher period in time.

 

[Old Bill Dibble]

Yet, if incarceration is the response it is because the offence has already happened: prevention fail.

Prevention fail that time. For the next crime with any luck at all they will be in jail and unable to commit.

Just because they want to use it to move onto guns, it doesn't mean that the initial premise that violence is a social behaviour that can influence the behaviour of those exposed to it is automatically false.
Now letting or preventing anti-gun folks then exploiting that to their own ends is a different story.

I'd say a lot of their premises were false. Including how effective they claimed to be.

Watch the video and note what the last speaker talks about: during his experiences in gang culture he had witnessed one altercation that had, with the resulting tit-for-tat reprisals eventually almost 1000 people died.

1000. From one argument.
Not worth trying to prevent? Using words and mediation? Seems worth a go to me.

Sounds like he is talking out of his backside for emotional effect. 1000 is a nice round number and certainly if the problem is that bad we must give him money to support his quest. I'd rather have peer reviewed evidence that his assertions are true. An assertion supported by the flimsiest of evidence (personal testimonies for example) are just that.

In any case I've found studies online that point to children exposed to violence later being more likely to be violent themselves and I've found reports of how people who have served in war-zones show higher levels of violent behaviour once back in regular society. So it would seem that exposure to it, can make it more likely.

Nearly all scientific studies say that military service leads to a statistically insignificant difference once you account for all factors. However; anyone who grows up in a society or culture where violence is the excepted norm for resolving issues will likely continue that through life. Somebody running up to them on the street and trying to guilt trip them into not knocking off their competitor who is taking their territory will at best get lip service.

 

[K_Mac]

Until our society economically, socially and politically stops promoting fatherless families we will have high rates dispair and violence. Eventually, we will either figure this out and go back to the way things were pre-1960's, or we will lose our way of life alltogether to a new regieme who will take us way back to a much harsher period in time.

Skans I believe this has been an unintended consequence of many government programs ostensibly created to reduce poverty, drug abuse, crime and violence. I don't think any meaningful discussion of these programs can happen without politics being at the forefront. I also don't think we can return to an earlier time anymore than fix the problems by governmental decree. Whether we have the resolve and political will to address these issues and the long-term commitment to follow through is doubtful in my opinion. I hope I'm wrong.

 

[Pond James Pond]

What was dismissed was the notion that violence is communicated in the same manner as a disease.

The video said that the spread, the movement of violence through a community is like that of a disease. It didn't say it was communicated by a pathogen.

It's possible that people afford the disease model some scrutiny because they see better, more coherent explanations of peoples' behavior. I land closer to 44AMP's critique.

And perhaps that is where the miscommunication lies.
If my attention was grabbed by the results that are reported to have been achieved and most other posters are focussed on the analogy used rather than those results, it's hardly surprising that I'm surprised by the piece's reception.

No one ever stopped having cancer or a cold by simply deciding to do otherwise.

Never say no one ever...

Beating, robbing or shooting a person, or drinking too much or lighting a cigarette are all the result of a person deciding to act, a mechanism very unlike any real disease.

If we're still on the "it's not a disease" response then we're not on the same page and we've understood that report in very different ways.

Prevention fail that time.

So tough luck if you're the first in line?

I'd say a lot of their premises were false.

Sounds like he is talking out of his backside for emotional effect.

Somebody running up to them on the street and trying to guilt trip them into not knocking off their competitor who is taking their territory will at best get lip service.

These are opinions.

 

[Old Bill Dibble]

So tough luck if you're the first in line?

Until they mobilize the "pre-crime unit" then yeah. When people run around and don't commit crimes they don't normally get locked up. More often what happens is that people run around and commit crimes and feel as though they are above the law because no one makes any effort to stop them or report them. Once they feel well and good above the law they go ahead and start killing people or convince others to do it for them.

These are opinions.

Except for the parts of them claiming they were having success when in fact they have not shown that to be true. I'd be really interested in seeing any kind of external scientific study that backs up any of what they are saying.

 

[Pond James Pond]

Until they mobilize the "pre-crime unit" then yeah.

And that fact doesn't seem to you like a valid motivation to explore possible ways of reducing the incidence of that first violent act?

When people run around and don't commit crimes they don't normally get locked up. More often what happens is that people run around and commit crimes and feel as though they are above the law because no one makes any effort to stop them or report them. Once they feel well and good above the law they go ahead and start killing people or convince others to do it for them.

Are there external studies to back that up?

I still think it's infinitely better if actions can be taken to prevent even that first crime and in this case there's potential just using dialogue.
Is it infallible? Course not, but nor is it such a big drain on resources unlike prisons.

No problem, on a societal level, has only one fix-all solution.
It is multiple inputs all doing their little bit. I don't see why such approaches could not be one of them.

It is almost that like minds were made up before the video even rolled....

 

[Old Bill Dibble]

It is almost that like minds were made up before the video even rolled....

You seem to losing the forest through the trees. Their claims of success are bogus. That makes it a non-starter out the gate.

Are there external studies to back that up?

It's my life, every day. May as well ask me if the sky is blue.

But yes, the overwhelming vast majority of killers (with the exception of the mentally ill which is not on the table here) have a criminal history warming up to murder. There are tons of studies on this.

 

[44 AMP]

I still think it's infinitely better if actions can be taken to prevent even that first crime...

Sure, if it actually works, of course its worthwhile...

But how do you know if it actually worked??? Proving a negative is about the most difficult thing there is.

Johnny didn't shoot anybody TODAY, because you talked him out of it? And because you did, you can claim moral high ground for preventing violence??

OK, now, PROOVE IT.

Maybe he didn't shoot anyone today, because its Tuesday, and he wants to watch tv instead. Maybe he told you that you talked him out of it so you would shut up and go away...

Maybe some other reason entirely..

Maybe its not preventing violence, only delaying it...

If I send Kim Jong whoweverthehellheis an email asking him not to start WWIII, today, and he doesn't start WW III today, can I HONESTLY take credit for saving the world???

I watched a tv show the other day, and while fiction, I thought it a fair example of the "old school" which despite its drawbacks, does work...

City is have a crime wave, robberies waaay up. City admistrator appoints a new guy head of the "police". Next week, robbery is waay down. Administrator calls in new police chief, congratulates him, and asks how he did it when everyone else failed...
the answer was..

"simple,! we just locked up everyone known to be a theif. And, their friends!"

problem solved!

 

[K_Mac]

44 we have more people locked up per capita than anywhere else in the world, including Kim Jong wherewhateverthehellhisnameis's country. If that is the answer, why so much violence?

 

[44 AMP]

Because we aren't locking up the right people (and keeping them locked up).

Numbers of people in jail only tell you the numbers of people in jail.

 

[K_Mac]

Because we aren't locking up the right people (and keeping them locked up).

Numbers of people in jail only tell you the numbers of people in jail.

Amen.

 

[Pond James Pond]

It's my life, every day. May as well ask me if the sky is blue.

What we see in life, we see through a prism of our own bias, so while I don't doubt it is what you believe and it may be true, it is still your opinion on the mechanics at work...

So, no offence, but that assessment is really only valid to you.
It may be that I live the same experiences as you and reach the same conclusion. Then again I may not.

I'd be really interested in seeing any kind of external scientific study that backs up any of what they are saying.

OK.
Baltimore. Chicago. NY.

I know you found a news article that would contradict the reported successes on the site "fashionweekdaily", but that is one article whereas above there are 3 scientific evaluations.
Now can I say they are bound to be correct and yours bound to be wrong?
No, but I'd say the debunking is not as undeniable as you suggest.

I will stand corrected on one point, however. Despite not focussing on gun violence in the news report, the above peer reviews and evaluations do focus on gun violence.

Having said that I don't see the guns being blamed, but rather the perpetrators and given the areas piloted were predominantly high-crime black areas and shootings are the leading cause of death for young black males, I can see why they might focus on firearms.

Sure, if it actually works, of course its worthwhile...

But how do you know if it actually worked??? Proving a negative is about the most difficult thing there is.

So don't try anything?
By that same logic you can't prove it doesn't work.

And I feel that applying a universal logic that if they didn't do something bad that day, they'd probably do it another to all in a community in one brush stroke is unreasonable.

No one would expect this to be the panacea for urban woes; to prevent every crime. But a reduction is worth celebrating and encouraging, not dismissing, IMO.

But hey....fine: stick to prisons but it comes with a hefty tax bill that will probably grow and I personally find the efficacy questionable.

It's worth noting I have no horse in this race, so if TFL members choose not to support such initiatives that is up to them, but the problems that project are trying to address aren't going away. If it was happening in my town, I'd be supportive of it.

 

[Old Bill Dibble]

What we see in life, we see through a prism of our own bias, so while I don't doubt it is what you believe and it may be true, it is still your opinion on the mechanics at work...

Before I post a bunch of stuff just want to make clear what you are saying... You are saying that gang members don't engage in criminal behavior and that DV killers don't abuse and harass their victims for months or years before they kill them. Is that correct?

 

[44 AMP]

When you boil it all down, what I get from the report is an organization with noble ideals, violence prevention, which is claiming success, by talking people out of doing violence. Reduced rates of violence MAY be a result of this, or MAY be due to some other factors not mentioned.

I don't think any of us has enough information to make a definitive assessment.

Talking people out of doing violence can, and sometimes does work, but it always reminds me of the old joke, about how many "councilors" does it take to change a light bulb?"

Only one, but the light bulb has to want to change....

The point is, no community program can work without the people in the community wanting it to work. I think THEY are the ones more deserving of the credit.

Of course, sometimes talking simply doesn't work. Neville Chamberlain showed the world that with "Peace in our Time".