STer

You sure? []

I have long found these discussions annoying because they end up being more about the labels than the issue at hand. All of this could be avoided if we just skipped the labels and went right to the heart of the matter. Science deals with confidence levels - in other words, probabilities. So the only question that really matters is this: What do you believe is the probability that there is a God? (of course, providing whatever definition of God you want to know someone's belief about). True believers in a given definition of God will say 100%. Some other people might say 0%. I think both answers are equally absurd as humans cannot know anything with those levels of certainty. Everyone else will fall somewhere in between.

Is it a debate where you've been assigned to argue against UHC by a third party, such as a teacher in a class you're in? My point is that if you're assigned by someone else to have to argue a particular viewpoint, then it makes sense to specifically seek out evidence supporting that side. If you're in a debate where you haven't been forced to take one side or the other, then it seems backward to choose your side and then seek evidence after.

Why are you looking for evidence to support a view? Isn't the idea to first look at evidence before deciding what your viewpoint is? Or are you in a debate or something where you've been assigned to take a particular side of the argument?

I am 34 and married a single mother. I worked as a casino dealer from age 22 to 30; didn't really like the hours or the working conditions, and found very little satisfaction in that business. Still trying to figure out what I want to do at 34... Grrr. I guess that is how life goes. But I haven't met a teacher (especially math) at my high school or district that is JUST THRILLED with the teaching profession. Most of us are disgruntled and disgusted by the entire system, but have too much invested to go elsewhere. But I am literally at whit's end. What about private math tutoring? Then you can use your skills and help people but do it in a private capacity. At the very least it could be something to do while exploring other things, a sort of transitional step.

Hey Rymember. What happened after you landed in China with less than $100? How did you get from there to where you are now? Very curious.

You might find this book interesting if you can get a copy of it somewhere. Or even just the basic idea of the book will probably interest you: Mindmelding: Consciousness, Neuroscience, and the Mind's Privacy

I'm going to stop our exchange here to consider what I can learn about myself from having engaged in this discussion with you. If it means anything to you, I promise to watch out for any evidence you might post of these other factors you keep suggesting. I wouldn't say you did engage since you blatantly avoided my direct questions, modeling exactly the behavior I'm complaining about in the thread.

I'm withholding evidence of other factors?? I would willfully ignore evidence of other factors?? I don't recall saying any such things. I asked you: Do you believe childhood trauma is the ONLY thing that can lead to violence/aggression? If so, please state that as your belief. If not, please name some of the other factors you sincerely think might contribute and deserve some attention along with childhood trauma. I await your response to those questions.

I don't consider them to be well articulated or well timed Well Godwin laid out a logical chain that Stefan seems to put forth in BIB. It seems like a pretty accurate statement to me. Do you find it to be inaccurate? As for well-timed, these questions have been raised now repeatedly in a number of threads by a number of people. It appears it's never a good time for most people to address them. I find it most telling that all of this evasion doesn't raise any red flags to you. But Stefan doesn't seem to really accept it as far from settled. Godwin showed how, for example, in BIB, in so many ways, including even some of the titles, he makes statements that seem far more certain than the data currently support. The problem always goes back to the stated mission of FDR. If he simply said it's an activist organization on child abuse, no problem. But he says it is explicitly promoting rationalism and empiricism, so that makes it noteworthy when he isn't being rational and empirical. And he is promoting an entire political philosophy, so the debate can't just stop at "reducing child abuse = good." He himself has made the context much wider than that by making the focus of FDR so grand so it's fair game to point out that other issues may also need attention within the context of an entire political viewpoint and strategy. I never said otherwise. I simply said that what is peaceful for one child vs. another may differ. Feeding a certain amount of sugar to a healthy child may be fine. Feeding the same amount to a diabetic child may be abusive. The specific actions that constitute "peaceful" depend on the situation and the particular characteristics of that child. I don't see where I've lowered my expectations. I continue to ask the questions in the hopes that people will indeed be rational and empirical and not evade questions in the same ways that they'd call out others for doing if they saw the same behavior elsewhere.

Oh, something like: Abuse and neglect seriously messes children up. And if children get messed up, they can't grow up to become researchers to figure out how to prevent children from getting messed up. But nobody here has denied that abuse and neglect "messes children up". We all agree on that. The discussion here is about whether it's accurate at this point to claim there aren't other things that also lead to violence/aggression and, if there are, what those might be. Do you believe childhood trauma is the ONLY thing that can lead to violence/aggression? If so, please state that as your belief. If not, please name some of the other factors you sincerely think might contribute and deserve some attention along with childhood trauma. I mean this as a serious inquiry, so please be sincere in your response.

Why do you suppose you're not receiving the response you're hoping for? My best guess is that it is because this board attracts people who, for various reasons, have a bias for believing strongly in the nurture side of this argument and who are not comfortable with that being challenged. They have bought into an entire philosophy built upon that stone and do not want that stone prodded at. So better, when it is being prodded at, to try to sidetrack discussion over and over. Remember, it's not just me. There were at least 3 people in this thread all trying to get similar answers on a similar topic. Not one has been replied to in a straightforward way. Now my turn to ask you. Why do you suppose you won't directly reply, for example, to Godwin's well-articulated questions about Stefan's BIB logic?

Thanks, Adam. You posted a lot of data here. It's hard to respond to that much data all put together as one post. Perhaps you can summarize what you're getting across? From a quick overview, I see work about the damage insecure attachment can cause (with which I have not argued) and work showing that environment and genes have a complex interplay (which I also do not argue). But feel free to clarify what you're hoping for me to see in what you posted.

Irresponsible compared to what? Irresponsible compared to claiming to be and attracting people based on claims to be an empiricist and then actually sticking to empirical statements. Irresponsible compared to being consistently honest and open about when we really do or don't know something. Irresponsible compared to having the same standard of truth for oneself as we hold others to. If I recall correctly, in an earlier thread you suggested that peaceful parenting techniques might harm a hypothetical purely-genetically-determined sociopath. I'd say a more accurate statement of my view is that what IS peaceful parenting for a purely-genetically-determined psychopath (which we agree is hypothetical) might differ from what is peaceful parenting for someone else, just as peaceful parenting for a child with diabetes might require some things that are not required for a child without diabetes. Peaceful parenting for children with special needs may involve different specifics than peaceful parenting for other children. I can also imagine that peaceful parenting of siblings of a psychopathic child might also require some different steps than parenting a child without such a sibling. So, I'm curious if, at any point, you plan to ask Stefan to clarify the questions being put to him in this thread? Or do you only plan to keep asking questions of the questioners while their actual questions go unanswered? Godwin once again posted some very specific questions about the claims in BIB, for example. Perhaps we can use the thread to focus on determining if Godwin has accurately represented the argument and, if so, if that argument is valid? Or I guess we can keep ignoring the questions about the content and just keep peppering the questioners infinitely with questions as a layer of non-stop distraction.

Well that's not entirely true - people with absent or abusive parents of the opposite gender tend to be far more susceptible to domestic, sexual, physical abuse and such. And people who have their preferences squashed as children are usually more susceptible to bullying/interpersonal manipulation later on in life and are thus more vulerable to conmen/extortionists and generally manipulative or intimidating people. You make a slightly different point than what I made. Yes being abused can add risk factors for being further exploited later. But removing abuse doesn't necessarily prepare you to avoid exploitation, especially of certain kinds. The whole point of my discussion here is insufficiency. Let's reduce childhood trauma all we can. But let's NOT assume it's sufficient. That's all I'm saying. That is speculative. It may even be that a certain level of exposure to traumatizing people prepares one for dealing with it whereas no exposure leaves one unprepared. I'm not saying that's the case. I'm just saying I don't see how you jump to the conclusions you reach. There are multiple hypotheses here and they need a lot more testing for us to know. Stef should be saying "Reducing child abuse is worth doing. It will likely have some beneficial effects on larger scale violence/aggression. Now let's get to work reducing it. Great now that that's settled, let's find out what other factors might be necessary in addition to reduce larger scale violence/aggression." Even if you truly believe child abuse is the most important factor, the resistance to investigating what would be the second most important factor is astounding. There is almost a religious insistence on ONLY focusing on childhood trauma. I find that troubling. You say your stance is an unverified personal opinion. Exactly. If Stefan always put that asterisk in, I'd be ok with that too. But he promotes this stuff as if it's empirically validated when it isn't. Is Stef agnostic on the issue or not? I can't tell, can you? I'd like to know. The author of Evil Genes, as far as I know, does not claim that we know exactly what level of nature vs. nurture are involved in violence/aggression. As far as I know, nobody with any credibility claims that answer is solved. What she does do is show a lot of very interesting work on the nature side that should make us very curious. Instead, when you raise the nature side at all here, it's either ignored or defensiveness kicks in. This should raise a red flag to bias going on that should be concerning. Again, you speak as if it's just a complete given with no question at all that a fully untraumatized set of people is best prepared to resist future exploitation. Again, I'm not saying you're wrong but it's amazing to me you can act so certain when there is a perfectly good alternative hypothesis (probably just one of several) that, in nature, immunity usually comes from some level of contact with an offensive substance rather than none. The fact you don't even consider alternate hypotheses is what reflects my main point in all of this - a level of bias that is brought to these discussions. What does "well-balanced" mean? Does it only mean untraumatized? Or does it also possibly require a number of other things too? If the latter, then we have more work to do than just reducing childhood abuse alone. That's not what a cure-all is. A cure-all is something that is necessary and sufficient by itself to solve a problem. All you're showing is that reduced childhood trauma contributes toward the solution, not that it, in itself, without anything else, will cure the problem. I could say well-fed people are more likely to solve the problem too, but I doubt you'd agree that feeding people is a cure-all. I'd like to hear a lot more about the other things that also need to be addressed. I think we're all more than clear at this point on the importance of child abuse. I'd like to see some focus on the other possible factors. If there is none, then I have to wonder why and how you can claim Stef doesn't see child abuse as the only thing needing to be addressed. I also don't see how you can admit your view is personal opinion and then claim you know the fundamental cause of violence/aggression in the world. That is contradictory. You have a hypothesis, that's all. Again, you have stated personal opinion under the guise of empirical fact. The problem is that this board is specifically devoted to empiricism. So when you state personal opinions as if they are empirical fact that is not honest and it needs to be pointed out. Perhaps on a faith-based site, that wouldn't be the case. But this is a site that prides itself on empiricism and uses its focus on empiricism as a selling point. So you cannot make statements like "reducing child abuse will bring about an overall peaceful world." and just expect that to be let go. You hope it will. You may believe it will. But it is not an empirical statement. Meanwhile, again, the point is not even whether reducing child abuse will bring about a peaceful world, but whether it will do it BY ITSELF. If not, then we have a lot more to discuss about what else is required in addition.

Balance does not always mean equal. For instance, eating a balanced diet means having a healthy amount of a variety of things. We require more of some things than others. When I say there is a lack of balance, I mean factors besides childhood trauma are not looked at nearly enough here. Perhaps they should be looked at equally, perhaps not. I'd be satisfied if even 20% of the focus here was on truly investigating the others aspects, including the work on biological aspects. I'd say it's closer to 0. In fact, it's negative, to the point where even raising the topics results in defensiveness. Actually, those of us asking for clarification are the ones being straw-manned. We have simply asked a couple very straightforward questions and the response is debates about things we never said or personal questions about us, rather than addressing the specific questions asked (other than one or two people who have posted to agree that there is a contradiction in Stefan's statements). We did ask Stefan. He was in this thread and responded multiple times, but only to debate small word choices in the questions. As soon as those word choices were cleared up, he never responded again. I prefer having the discussion here in writing since it gives more time to edit and clarify than speaking.

That's a worthwhile hypothesis. I'd like to see it tested more. But I also think one thing being missed is that there is nothing inherent in being raised in a healthy way that prepares you for resisting exploitive people, per se. Just as being raised without exposure to the flu doesn't inherently give you immunity to it or knowledge on how to avoid it. And being raised in a healthy way doesn't suddenly give you the knowledge of how to avoid being hit by a car. I think that even as we try to reduce childhood trauma, it's crucial that the scientific study of exploiters, where they come from, how they work, what disorders may be involved, and so on, continue and that the public be widely educated on this topic. There are plenty of threats in the world that require specific education to be protected against them. I think that applies here. So this goes along with the point that simply raising children in a healthy way may not be enough to stop exploitive forces from dominating. You may be interested in the concept of logocracy, which applies here. I will agree with you that child abuse should be reduced and that doing so is likely to help to some extent. All I take issue with is the single-mindedness with which that measure is promoted on this board as a sort of cure-all that will inevitably lead to a peaceful world. I can't continue stating this enough. My beef is not with the focus on child abuse. It's with the lack of balance in considering other things that may also be involved and other measures that might also be necessary in addition to reducing child abuse in the context of promoting an entire global political philosophy. If this site was devoted simply to reducing child abuse and that was its stated focus - just as is the case with a number of such organizations out there - we wouldn't be having this chat. I fully support such work. The only problem that arises for me is when it extends to "And reducing child abuse this way - and without the need to consider other possibly necessary issues - will bring about an overall peaceful world."

I am of the white race in a serious relationship with a girl of Japanese and Korean descent with plans to have children in the future. Are you in support of this? -Dylan That's your business. TronCat, I wonder if you would agree that your original post has kind of split into two separate topics and that it might be helpful to take the race stuff into a separate thread and leave this one for the "role of parenting" discussion. I think this thread is being ill-served by having the two sub-threads going back and forth with each other.

I found the second question relevant, but not the first. Do you apply the same standard to Stefan, who has evaded the questions posed by multiple people in this thread and has been doing so since long before you asked me your question? I would like to see a focus on that evasion so that the questions can be answered. I'm also confused why you frame this as you debating with me. This thread is about several of us asking Stefan to clarify his own stated views. The fact it has turned into a debate is part of the very problem. We come asking for clarification on his views and instead people jump in and start debating us and asking us questions, instead of asking why our questions aren't being answered. I await you applying that same standard to Stefan's not answering the questions posed in the thread. If you read the statements we've asked for clarification on, you'll notice that they go far beyond what you just said there. Stefan does not make that statement, which is rather reasonable, and then stop there. He goes way beyond that and then builds an entire political philosophy on that going way beyond. And, in addition, some of his statements, which Godwin posted right next to each other earlier in the thread, appear contradictory. So even if you believe what you just said is true, that doesn't make this conversation any less necessary. So you agree there is a contradiction and instead of focusing on me "evading" an irrelevant personal question, you should be focusing on him evading calls to clarify that contradiction. Saying "childhood violence causes adult violence" is so simplistic it doesn't help much. The question is WHAT ELSE causes adult violence, if anything, and in what proportions do these contribute? And "When we go up to the global scale, what is the relationship between violence and aggression on that level and the childhood trauma?" These are unanswered questions. If you think they are answered I urge you to put together a paper showing empirically the answers and it will be quite groundbreaking. That's like asking someone urging more research into electricity in the early days of electricity whether they've done more to bring light to the world than candlemakers. That question will only be answerable when the type of research being called for is actually done more and pays off with some answers. And if it confirms Stefan's viewpoint, fantastic, then he will have a far more solid basis for making the claims he is currently making. But the simple fact is you should not be making statements that can't be backed up while claiming empiricism. That is speculation. For all we know, squabbles over limited resources or some other factor will lead to continued violence and aggression even with healthily raised kids. Or perhaps a significant number of exploiters are indeed produced by things other than bad parenting and these will continue to exploit because even well parented kids don't necessarily have enough education of how to resist them just by virtue of being raised well. I hope you're right and that if we reduce childhood trauma, the rest takes care of itself. But you cannot call yourself an empiricist and make such wildly speculative claims and not expect to be called on them. The point was I find it incredibly speculative to claim that if kids are raised healthily, they'll all become rational and logically consistent. Within humanity, we have a diversity among many things, including how we make decisions. Many people make decisions emotionally and I believe it's likely still would do so even when raised in a healthy manner because there are strong evolutionary drives for some percentage of us to be more feelers than thinkers. It sometimes seems like people here believe that, in Myers-Briggs terms, if kids were raised in a healthy way, they'd all become "NT" types that think logically and rationally and that this would, of course, lead them to become anarchists. I doubt that.

Since, in some other threads, I'm harping on some of the ways the focus on childhood trauma plays out here, I thought I'd take this opportunity to mention that I also love seeing stories of improved parenting. The fact that your work helps bring that about is fantastic and I fully support it. I believe we still need a lot more information before we'll know quite what role that plays in changing the issues of violence and aggression on a global level. But, in and of themselves, these are wonderful stories and a great thing to contribute to that will no doubt improve the lives of many people.

It's pretty hard to imagine how you could read my posts and still have to ask that question. But, as I thought I've made clear (including in the very post you responded to), I completely support working to reduce childhood trauma. It is a worthy goal for its own sake. I simply don't think it's responsible to claim that doing so will lead to the grand scale things that people on this board often claim, since we don't know yet exactly to what extent childhood trauma contributes to those larger problems as opposed to other factors. I support healthy nutrition for kids too. That doesn't mean I think if we give them healthy nutrition, the world's violence and aggression will necessarily be significantly reduced by that measure alone. The latter has little to do with why I support the former. Perhaps reducing childhood trauma will be the primary factor in improving the world as a whole. Perhaps it will only be a minor factor and other things matter more. My main concern is that if you think reducing childhood trauma is the single primary strategy for addressing global issues, then you stop questioning if other strategies are equally or even more important in the grander scale. Very little, which is why I support reducing childhood trauma (and many other things that I think are healthy for children and adults) for its own sake at the same time I support further investigation into the roots of larger scale violence/aggression. One thing worth noting though is that when attempting to reduce childhood trauma as a public health issue, we still come back to the nature vs. nurture question there too. Understanding why violence and aggression happen on a larger scale may also give us better ways to reduce childhood trauma, as well.

Do you hold this view consistently? If so, I take it you see no purpose in us researching any genetic disorders since there is "nothing we can do about it?" I've already covered in other threads at length why, even if a disorder is shown to be genetic, it's very very worth knowing that. These same discussions just repeat and repeat. Beyond that, on a board dedicated to empiricism and rationalism, I find it strange that Stefan can make a claim, be called out that that claim is not supported, and the response is "Well it leads to a good place anyway, so who cares." If he is claiming that reducing childhood trauma will, as the primary strategy, bring about this greater peaceful world, then it is fair game to question if this is a true statement. And if people here are committed to the search for truth, they should be asking the same question.

Our personal experiences of violence as children are not relevant. None of us is even saying childhood violence isn't a problem or we shouldn't work to stop it. All we've said is that the science does not show in any conclusive way at this time that nurture is primary and nature secondary in causing the overall problems of violence and aggression on the larger scale as Stefan seems to claim. Trying to focus on our personal experience when we're questioning a simple factual claim by Stefan (and one even he himself contradicts at different times in his own work) is a distraction and almost akin to an ad hominem in question form. This is one of the patterns I've seen many people complain about on these boards over the years. Anyone who questions one of Stefan's view, even simply laying out his argument and asking if this is correct, is peppered with these personal psychological questions that both imply that the questioner can't possibly simply be asking an objective rational question or, at the very least, serve to keep distracting from the question at hand. You aim a question at Stefan's work and in return you don't get a straight answer, but a bunch of suspicious questions about you and your motives for asking. And ironically, if your original question isn't answered that's considered fine, but if you don't answer the distracting follow-ups this supposedly shows that you are not asking your original question in good faith. No, this thread is about the seemingly contradictory claims Stefan has made about nature vs. nurture in regards to violence and aggression on a global scale. That's it. That's what it's about. Godwin laid out very nicely the various quotes right next to each other and we simply want Stefan to explain if his viewpoint was accurately represented and why there are seemingly contradictory statements. And the fact that that answer is not forthcoming after this long of a thread speaks volumes. In fact, I'm pretty sure the other two people who also had similar questions to me in this thread have given up on ever getting an answer at this point and I'm close to doing so myself. As for the second question, I have spent most of the last over 2 years working on writing and promoting the work and ideas I bring up in my initial post on this board. It has been a huge investment of time and effort and even my finally joining this board was part of that effort. So yes I am definitely backing up what I talk about with action (and at some personal cost to me). I claim to be agnostic on the roots of larger scale violence and aggression and I back that up by promoting more research rather than claiming that reducing environmental factors is primary. Stefan, on the other hand, appears to claim to be agnostic but at the same time claim that reducing childhood trauma will bring about a peaceful world on a larger scale. I repeat for the umpteenth time: I completely favor reducing childhood trauma. I simply do not agree that at this time it is responsible to claim that doing so will also bring about some larger scale anarchist peaceful paradise because a world of non-traumatized children will grow into rational adults that agree with FDR's philosophy. I think that is a stretch that cannot be backed up by anything empirical.

I appear to be a little late on the draw here, but upon reading this remark I went into a trance and began channeling a conversation from approximately 1790-1810 AD (according to my I Ching calculations). The part of the conversation I was able to catch was: "....by 1840, if demographic trends continue, America's red population will be the minority. We need immigration control!" Nyuk nyuk. -Dylan

Please re-read my statements again. Regardless of your statements, as far as I and several others can tell, Stefan does make the claim that I mentioned. We have repeatedly asked for him to clarify if he does indeed believe this and no clarification has come. As for other research worth looking at, go through my original post on this board. I have repeatedly offered other resources. Someone mentioned many others in this very thread. There is an entire body of work looking at the nature side of this that hardly gets discussed on this board and is sorely needed to provide a balanced viewpoint. More importantly, there should be a very strong interest in actively helping all of this research progress further (just as many people are activists to help support research into various illnesses) because the research is not yet at a state that allows for very solid conclusions. Instead, I see most people doing their very best to defend the nurture side and give short shrift to the nature side or even to admitting that we simply don't know enough at this point. This reflects a strong bias that should be concerning to anyone who is a rational empiricist.