STer

You are saying that your approach (more research is necessary before promoting a primary way to reduce violence) is correct, and our approach (current evidence is sufficient to start promoting a loving, nurturing childhood without verbal or physical abuse as the primary way to reduce violence in the world) is incorrect. So why are you prematurely promoting your strategy that more research is necessary when we feel our evidence is sufficient? We feel that our approach has sufficient evidence to start promoting it. We are always open to more evidence and more research especially if it contradicts our current view. We want to know that we are on the right course of action and not supporting incorrect theories that may lead to more pain and suffering. Thank you for helping us out by fully investing your time in researching this essential issue. Let us know what you find out. So you believe that the nature vs. nurture issue regarding violence/aggression is sufficiently settled that you can claim that reducing childhood trauma is the most important element in reducing violence/aggression in the world and bringing about an overall peaceful world? I find it interesting because I have found almost no experts in the field that feel that strongly. Nearly every expert I've ever read on this subject says that we are not even close to knowing the answer to that yet. I find it strange that here at FDR people claim to have a level of certainty that nobody who works in those fields has. It would be similar to hearing you claim to be very confident in the best course to treat a type of cancer while experts in that field are saying we still need many many rounds of clinical trials. I will side with those who work every day on the science involved in these issues. I wish you would too. I find it irresponsible to create false hope by telling people that reducing childhood trauma can bring about results that we have no solid reason to believe it can bring about. You can promote the very good idea of reducing childhood trauma without falsely inflating the promises of what that will lead to beyond helping those children and families. Claiming that it will also bring about a world full of rational people who will all be clear headed and thus anarchists who will abolish the state and bring about peace and freedom is far beyond anything an empiricist could say. How anyone can make such a claim and call it empirical is beyond me.

Doesn't anyone else think it's important to accurately diagnose the people involved here? The situation is very different if there are people with serious personality disorders involved as opposed to people who are just wounded and defensive. Also doesn't anyone think, above all, it may be a chance to teach the niece - in some age appropriate way - about whatever the reality of the situation is? There are some people who, sadly, are completely and utterly resistant to change. And if that's the case with these people and the niece is stuck living with them for quite a while more, wouldn't the best strategy be to somehow give her the tools to come out of it as intact as possible, without blaming herself, and with the skills for how to negotiate with the types of people she's going to have to deal with? It's a delicate situation. You can't necessarily, at her age, just tell her the whole truth in plain English. She might repeat it to someone and get in even worse trouble. But there have to be some ways to sort of bolster her so she can better survive this. Perhaps the best answer of all is to find a therapist who specializes in the types of disorders involved here and get their professional opinion on what can best help this niece.

I didn't say the strategy is incorrect. I said it is too early to know which strategy is optimal. We are still in the phase of needing more basic research. I believe what would be accurate is to say: 1) Reducing child abuse is a good thing, but we don't know what impact it will have on the overall level of violence and aggression on a global level. We promote that for its own sake, without making grandiose claims about what larger outcomes it would lead to. 2) We highly prioritize investing in further research into the roots of violence and aggression to bring us the basic science knowledge we need to make better determinations about what strategies will best work on the larger scale. Compare it to many situations we find in medicine. If you care very deeply about reducing a certain illness at a public health level, but the research is still in an unclear phase, the best thing you can do is invest in promoting that research. I believe the FDR community would be best served by admitting we do not yet know very clearly the extent to which nature vs. nurture contribute to the overall violence/aggression in our world and becoming fervent supporters of those doing the research into that area - and not cherry picking the ones who lean toward the nurture side, but investing in those doing the most unbiased - and therefore actually scientific - work. It is not helpful to a cause to prematurely promote a strategy that is not yet supported by the evidence as capable of bringing about more than we can safely claim it will do. And it is wrong to claim that prematurely promoting such a strategy is helpful to such a cause and that calling for further research before making such premature claims is hurtful to that cause.

Stefan isn't claiming "This is one decent strategy among many." He seems to be saying this is THE primary and most important strategy. That is a big difference. If he said "Look reducing child abuse is good and we should do it." nobody would be complaining. When he seems to say "Reducing childhood trauma is the singular best thing we can do to bring about a peaceful world and, if we do so, we likely will bring about that peaceful world." then some of us raise serious questions. Do you understand the difference between these things?

You mixed up burden of proof again. The burden of proof is on the person putting forth the strategy. Stefan appears to be claiming that, based on current research, we can conclude that the highest priority for bringing more peace to the world as a whole is to reduce childhood trauma. I do not believe he has provided sufficient evidence to support that claim.

You sure can. When it comes to rationalism, "We don't yet know" beats prematurely making up an answer when that's the honest truth. My answer - along with many of the people who study these things for a living - is "We need more research." Reserving judgment. We simply don't know enough to make a solid decision and the decisions are just too important to jump to conclusions. I don't have to provide a better strategy to simply point out that the support for someone else's strategy may be overstated. If you think I do there is no logical basis for this discussion. And if I was to provide a better strategy I'd be contradicting my own point which is that we don't yet have enough fundamental basic scientific understanding of the dynamics to even decide that yet.

Kirk, your analogy with dogs is not relevant to this thread. Dogs are dogs, Humans are humans. What is true for dogs may be completely different for humans as it may be for tons of other species. Even if we were to accept it as relevant here, the point is that vicious dogs can be tamed BY HUMANS. That doesn't mean vicious humans could be tamed by other humans. Maybe if some much stronger more powerful type of being appeared, it could tame vicious humans the way humans tame vicious dogs and that could be the answer to our problems (an answer you'd probably find even worse than the problem itself) Humans do not have some much larger, much smarter species taming the vicious among us. So this analogy to dogs doesn't help us here. Please let it go and focus on humans, not dogs.

You are on a forum devoted to discussing how to bring more peace to the world. It is therefore not just a discussion forum, but an activist endeavor, as well. Activists must decide on strategy. And Stefan seems to promote a strategy that says "We should focus on reducing childhood trauma as our main priority. That will be the best use of our energy to make the world a better place." I am not sure that is the best strategy for making the world a better place. It's ONE strategy. And it does help to some degree. But there may be other more important things. That has nothing to do with how horrific child abuse is. Many horrific things happen in the world. The question is which ones are fundamental ones which, if addressed, would have the greatest impact. That's what activists must do - prioritize based on what has the most impact. So you're basically saying that it's not even possible to know whether nature or nurture is the cause of violence/aggression? If that's the case you should be as confused as Godwin and I are by the places where Stefan seems to claim quite confidently that childhood trauma is in fact the cause. You can't extend questions of violence/aggression in dogs to humans. And on top of that, as has been pointed out, you won't find many fighting poodles. Then you should be the one railing against anyone claiming to know with any solidity, rather than me. You sound even more agnostic than me! I think it's likely overly simplistic. You not using violence or aggression doesn't necessarily stop those who do use it. It may even be that, in a game theory sense, when it's more unclear who will be violent or aggression, people are more cautious in general, including those who are themselves violent or aggressive. I'm not saying that's the case. But I think it's extremely simplistic to think "If I reduce my level of violence, that addresses violence and aggression as a global issue." There are many issues where the same issue at a personal level has different factors involved than it does at a global level.

Remember, scientific evidence that environment plays a role doesn't tell us that innate traits don't also. Have you seen research ruling OUT the nature side of things? Or only ruling in some environmental aspects? What Godwin and I are saying is NOT that we believe environment plays no role, but rather that we don't believe the nature side of things has been sufficiently ruled out. That's a very important distinction. But Stefan puts out a lot of work that seems to reflect a belief that nature has been ruled out - even while claiming not to believe that. It's very confusing. Godwin and I feel a lot of his work doesn't accurately reflect this lack of proof and seems to portray things as much more certain than they are. The fact that there are thousands of hours of his work is precisely part of the problem. At various points in that work he seems to contradict himself. Far back in this thread, we juxtaposed some seemingly contradictory statements. Nobody has been able to reconcile them yet. So there is a confusion as to exactly what his stance is. And it's very odd that the pressure isn't put on him to clarify but on us. What do you think it says that when people come in the forum and simply ask for clarification of some seemingly contradictory quotes, the majority of responses are interrogating them rather than asking for that clarification?

Not just any dog can be trained to be a "fighting dog", this is understood by most anyone in that line of business. This argument against the importance of genetics in our nature is silly. In addition to this entire dog issue not necessarily shedding any light on humans, it's also worth noting that you don't see too many fighting poodles.

I didn't say your questions are pointless. I said they aren't relevant to this particular discussion about claims Stefan has made. If you are just curious about my views on things, then we can talk about them. But in this thread, I find them a distraction from trying to get some answers to the actual topic, where the burden of proof is not on us. Nobody is questioning if children should be abused. The question is whether we are at a point where we can say with solidity "Yes we are confident that childhood trauma is the primary driver of violence/aggression and thus should be our main strategic focus" or if we are at a point where we still do not know the primary driver(s) of violence/aggression and thus more research is required before drawing a conclusion as to the best strategy. I think people should be encouraged to eat healthily too. But that doesn't mean that I think if they do so, major wars will end, for example. Just because you support one thing doesn't mean you think it necessarily brings about the other. As for your dog question, why are you not repeatedly aiming that question at Stefan? Stefan claims to be agnostic on the roots of violence/aggression, the same stance I take. Yet for some reason you keep peppering Tron and me and Godwin with this question as if it somehow discredits us. So the first problem is why you think we're the ones to be asking this question to rather than Stefan. The second, more important, problem is that we are not talking about the roots of violence/aggression in dogs, but in humans. They may be quite different. Dogs do not participate in world wars, humans do. There are some far more complex dynamics at work with humans. I have no idea about the roots of dog violence. Perhaps you're right and it's all nurture with dogs and no breeds are more violent innately (or maybe you're wrong, I would have to look at the research to know). The bottom line is it doesn't tell us what is going on with humans to know that answer as relates to dogs.

"- Is childhood trauma the primary reason for violence/aggression in our world?" Do you think there is any way to prove this, at this point and time? The best I think you can get is a theory. But less violence/aggression towards children would be automatically less violence/aggression in the world. Which I think everyone would agree is a good thing. "Should reducing childhood trauma, strategically, be the #1 objective for those who want to create a peaceful, healthy, sustainable world?" I would think living your life free of using violence or aggression towards others would be the best way. Your own actions are really the only thing you can control. I'm interested to know what you think? Why does it matter if its the primary reason for violence/aggression? If childhood trauma is a reason but not the primary reason does that make a big difference to you? Or do you believe it has nothing to do with it? What do you believe is the primary reason? Genetics? I believe we are not nearly at a point where we can say with much confidence that nurture, rather than nature, is primarily responsible for the violence/aggression in the world. I would guess it is some combination of both and we can't yet pinpoint what that is. Even Stefan claims to be agnostic on this, but I don't think his work usually reflects that agnosticism and often it seems to pretty solidly be based on the nurture side of things. Yes we all agree we should reduce childhood trauma as best we can. But how that relates to reducing the larger issues of violence/aggression (whether it is a massive impact or a minor impact) we don't know yet. The question is whether there is some other factor that is crucial. And if you too blindly buy into one side of this debate prematurely, you stop looking for those other factors as hard. Perhaps there is indeed a significant genetic component, for example. And people should be seeking that out just as strongly as they seek out environmental causes. Until we have a solid answer, we should avoid bias. And remember that there are implications even for simply stating a stance. If you say that violence/aggression are based in trauma, then you are implying that parents who have a violent/aggressive child were abusers. If you're wrong, that is a terrible false accusation. And that's just one example. Taking stands on these types of issues has consequences and should not be done lightly. If your goal is to bring about a healthier, more sustainable, more peaceful world, then of course it matters what you think is the primary strategic way to do that. "The question is whether there is some other factor that is crucial." What do you think are possible factors? What do you think is the crucial factor? "And if you too blindly buy into one side of this debate prematurely, you stop looking for those other factors as hard." I think this is a little insulting to use the word "blindly", I think there has been plenty of studies and evidence used by Stef. I know for me, a lot of this just makes sense at gut level with what i've seen and experienced in my life. Have you had experiences that contraindicate the theory that abuse towards children leads to more abuse? And I'm talking in the general sense. Also I posted this question earlier. I have a question to you as far as nature vs. nuture. If we were going to make financial bet as to whether dog was vicious, and we had some standard to measure this when the dog was full grown. But you have a choice to pick the breed or how it's raised what would you choose? What would you choose? This I think goes a long way telling us how much effect nuture has on an idividual. Your entire response just points back to burden of proof. For the sake of interesting discussion I answer these post a lot of times. But the fact is, I don't have any responsibility to do so. The burden of proof is on Stefan. We are asking for his view of the subject and his evidence for his view. I don't have to offer any alternative proposals. I can and sometimes do (and if you go read my other posts you'll see them all, as I'm getting tired of typing the same responses over and over). But I don't have to. And I have repeatedly stated that I am agnostic on this issue - truly agnostic and that is reflected in my approach. Stefan claims to be agnostic (which means you could just as well be grilling him with these same questions since, in theory, he agrees with me). The only difference is that he often doesn't actually seem to be agnostic when you look at his work and has made other statements that appear to contradict that. Stefan appears to us to have made a claim. We want to know if we have interpreted his claim correctly and how he believes the evidence supports that claim. That's it. It is very non-rational that, rather than join in asking him to explain, you turn on the people asking the questions and pepper them left and right with an endless bunch of questions. The burden of proof is not on us. It is on the person making the claim in question.

Every stand we take has potential consequences. That's why I tend to remain agnostic unless very confident. When forced to place a bet I place my best bet. But premature taking of stances should, in my view, be avoided. We're talking here about one of the most vexing problems in the history of humanity - the roots of violence and aggression. To jump to a conclusion on such an issue is really not justifiable for a responsible person who identifies as rational or empirical in my view. Refusing to jump to premature conclusions is just as much a part of rationalism and empiricism as is taking stances when they are supportable.

Then how do you explain the quote here? So then if someone else claims violence/aggression are totally genetic and as evidence they cite "stuff I read and some conversations and experiences I had" you'd accept that? That's not scientific evidence on which you can base a conclusion this crucial and important. Our qualms about BIB aren't really about BIB, per se. BIB is just one place that seems to distill the overall philosophy that runs through most of Stef's work. Even though in that quote I linked to above he claims to be agnostic on this issue, his work doesn't seem to reflect that agnosticism most of the time and Godwin has documented some places he seems to go almost to the extent of showing a solid belief in nurture as the cause of violence/aggression. Godwin and I are only "stumped" as to how people seem to think that BIB (and arguments like it) show something they do not - namely that childhood trauma is the primary reason for violence/aggression and should be our #1 focus if we want to bring about a peaceful world. We understand quite well the work itself. We simply are trying to understand how the argument is being accepted as valid when it seems like overreach to us. And again I want to reiterate this is not to say Stef's work isn't fantastic and important. Only that I think he is trying to stretch the conclusions beyond what can be supported.

"- Is childhood trauma the primary reason for violence/aggression in our world?" Do you think there is any way to prove this, at this point and time? The best I think you can get is a theory. But less violence/aggression towards children would be automatically less violence/aggression in the world. Which I think everyone would agree is a good thing. "Should reducing childhood trauma, strategically, be the #1 objective for those who want to create a peaceful, healthy, sustainable world?" I would think living your life free of using violence or aggression towards others would be the best way. Your own actions are really the only thing you can control. I'm interested to know what you think? Why does it matter if its the primary reason for violence/aggression? If childhood trauma is a reason but not the primary reason does that make a big difference to you? Or do you believe it has nothing to do with it? What do you believe is the primary reason? Genetics? I believe we are not nearly at a point where we can say with much confidence that nurture, rather than nature, is primarily responsible for the violence/aggression in the world. I would guess it is some combination of both and we can't yet pinpoint what that is. Even Stefan claims to be agnostic on this, but I don't think his work usually reflects that agnosticism and often it seems to pretty solidly be based on the nurture side of things. Yes we all agree we should reduce childhood trauma as best we can. But how that relates to reducing the larger issues of violence/aggression (whether it is a massive impact or a minor impact) we don't know yet. The question is whether there is some other factor that is crucial. And if you too blindly buy into one side of this debate prematurely, you stop looking for those other factors as hard. Perhaps there is indeed a significant genetic component, for example. And people should be seeking that out just as strongly as they seek out environmental causes. Until we have a solid answer, we should avoid bias. And remember that there are implications even for simply stating a stance. If you say that violence/aggression are based in trauma, then you are implying that parents who have a violent/aggressive child were abusers. If you're wrong, that is a terrible false accusation. And that's just one example. Taking stands on these types of issues has consequences and should not be done lightly. If your goal is to bring about a healthier, more sustainable, more peaceful world, then of course it matters what you think is the primary strategic way to do that.

Are those Stefan's views though? And how do you (or he) possibly support these stances empirically with the current knowledge we have? This is what I think Godwin and I are both stumped by. The argument in BIB does NOT really show those things sufficiently.

I find it very telling that all I want and have wanted since very early in this thread is a clear, once-and-for-all, explanation of what Stefan's view is on the relationship between child abuse (or childhood trauma, if you prefer) and the larger issues of violence/aggression in the world. Not only is such an explanation not forthcoming, but nearly every post is an attempt to distract from the question with ad hominems, discussions of motive rather than substance and so on. - Is childhood trauma the primary reason for violence/aggression in our world? -Should reducing childhood trauma, strategically, be the #1 objective for those who want to create a peaceful, healthy, sustainable world? These are straightforward questions. And on a philosophy board, defined by its supposed rationality and empiricism, I find it very very telling that it is so difficult to get a straight answer, even after pages and pages of posts. I find it even more troubling that most others who respond aren't just as interested in getting that straight answer, but actually seem more interested in finding ways to distract and obfuscate from those questions.

I'm finding this kind of distraction frustrating. Godwin has put forth a very straightforward explanation of Stef's argument in BIB and made a claim that that argument is faulty. As empiricists, at that point, we should be having a discussion about: 1) Is that an accurate account of Stefan's argument? (which would be greatly assisted if Stefan would finally lay out if that is indeed his argument or not) 2) If that is Stefan's argument, is it logically valid and supported by evidence? That's really it. There is no reason for Godwin to be questioned on "What is your motivation for raising this point?" or "Why did you notice this and not us?" Those may be interesting discussions, but are unrelated to the topic at hand and I think they are used to continue not to face the crux of the issue. I personally agree that it is a leap to say that because many statists are unreasonable and child abuse is one cause of being unreasonable, therefore the main way to bring about a peaceful society is by reducing child abuse. Also I like very much how Godwin stated this. You can support either or both of the ideas of reducing child abuse and bringing about a more peaceful world and still not agree that child abuse is the PRIMARY cause in why we have violence and aggression. I think Stefan is doing some conflating that isn't merited. And pointing out and questioning that conflation does not tell you anything about someone's views on either of the issues being conflated - only on their view of how they relate to each other.

Correlation does not equal causation. So the fact that violent people tend to have violent childhoods, even if true, wouldn't tell us what's really going on. It could be that the violence is genetic, and, thus, you'd expect violent children to have violent parents. I've made this point before. Whether violence/aggression are caused by nature or nurture, you'd expect the same thing in either case - to see violent children coming from violent families. The problem Godwin and I and, to some extent TronCat, I believe, have is that he doesn't stick to simply pointing out this correlation and then say "And that's all we can say. Much more will be needed to make any solid claims beyond that." Nor does he simply say "This is horrific and we should reduce child abuse because it will help people." He has gone way beyond that to build an entire political philosophy around the idea that childhood abuse is the crux of the issue and that promoting peaceful parenting is not only noble and worthwhile, but would lead to a peaceful world full of freedom. He apparently seems to say (and I still await clarification) that reducing child abuse is the #1 most important thing we can do to bring about a peaceful world. Even though I fully support reducing child abuse as much as possible, I don't know if that statement can be supported. It may be that something else is needed just as much to bring about a more peaceful world.

I think of it more that out in the wild, human beings simply cannot survive without great cooperation. The evolution of cooperation is really the reason humans thrived on this planet. One on one, we fare very poorly in the wild. As cooperative groups, we do extremely well. Thus, prior to civilization, there was a massive incentive to watch for and keep in check rogue people who would exploit the rest of the group - as in the kunlangeta story I mentioned a few posts ago. Those who were overly aggressive in taking what they wanted, at the expense of the group, posed an immediate and mortal threat to the group. Civilization itself stemmed from a systematic violent movement, forcing pre-civilized groups to accept this way of life. We still see, to this day, indigenous groups willing to fight to the death or even commit suicide to avoid being assimilated into civilization.

Humans have survived on this planet for hundreds of thousands of years. There were tribes that lived quite sustainably for many thousands of years. Surely these groups, if it is an evolutionary strategy alongside the usual human strategy, would have sociopaths/psychopaths pop up many times over those thousands of years. Yet they were able to withstand their influence. The kunlangeta story is relevant here. Often, it seems, these groups were NOT accomodating and cooperative to the psychopaths/sociopaths among them (or you could say they did what Evolution of Cooperation says is necessary to remain generally cooperative in the face of such forces.) I think the real trouble has arisen due to increased hierarchy and technological leverage. Now it only takes a couple psychopaths/sociopaths in key positions in a hierarchy or with access to enough technology to greatly magnify their influence far beyond what was ever possible before.

I know you said this was in part 3 a few comments back, but could you tell me at what time in part 3 Stefan says this? I'm not doubting you, I just don't want to search for it if you already know the position. - Stefan Molyneux, The Fascists that Surround You, Part 3: Statists, 9 minutes, 13 secondsThe whole first 10 minutes of that video is interesting because he goes over the whole evolutionary viewpoint of psychopathy/sociopathy which is really what I think this is about. And if this was all I had heard from him, I'd think his position is quite reasonable. But it's confusing because it seems like in other places, such as in the BIB quotes Godwin posted, he takes different stances.

Now contrast all of that with the statement in The Fascists that Surround you where he says "I remain mildly agnostic tending toward environment." That should give you a sense of why I'm still so confused about what his actual view is and keep asking him to just clarify once and for all. The views in BIB don't seem to reflect agnosticism, but rather a lot more certainty than just "tending toward environment."

I just pointed out that if Stefan is making the claim I stated above (and I'm not sure he is, I'm still waiting for him to clarify) then the burden of proof is on him to back it up. The fact you respond to that by again asking me for proof goes against the entire point of burden of proof. I am not claiming he's right or wrong. I'm claiming we don't know the answer to this. He appears at times to be saying we do know the answer and that the answer is that child abuse is the primary cause of violence and aggression. If so, that requires proof. You should be asking him to provide that proof, not asking me to prove it's wrong. That's what burden of proof is all about.

I'm glad you brought up burden of proof because that is a key issue here. If someone states "Violence and aggression are primarily the result of child abuse" (which is what I think is Stefan's viewpoint, though I continue to await further explication) then the burden of proof is on them to show that. As wonderful as the Bomb in the Brain Series is, it does not show that. It shows that of those who are abused, many have brain changes. It does not in any way tell us what proportion of violent, aggressive people were made that way by child abuse.