STer

I really don't think that's merited or necessary at all. People call into the Sunday show to talk about their dreams or to debate whether they should have implemented mandatory baby factories on Battlestar Galactica. I think having a conversation about what you called "the central idea of Freedomain Radio" would qualify as a reason to call in. Sure, you and the Aryan Brotherhood. Asked and answered. He's stated in multiple podcasts that he's ambivalent on the degrees of influence between nature and nuture, but that it doesn't matter because nurture is the only one that people can control. So if we eradicate child abuse and there's still lots of violence in the world, then maybe we need to focus on genetic factors. It doesn't matter whether it's the largest; it's the low-hanging fruit. Stopping child abuse is a far easier, safer and moral plan of action than a eugenics war or mandatory abortions. Again, already answered in podcasts. Navel gazing over percentages of influence is misdirection. No, at this point the ball is already being carried through the victory lap. You just keep running the race anyway. Already published multiple times. You just keep plugging your ears. I agree that the topic is important enough to be discussed on a show. I just mean I don't really feel like calling in and I think the question has been posed quite clearly. At this point it's simply for him to answer it. You keep claiming it's been answered already. But first of all, I have yet to hear it clearly and concisely from Stefan himself (though you claim to have, I haven't). Even when he sees the question posed, as has happened a couple times, I've never had him give a solid final answer. Second, and just as important, even if he has answered it, there are clearly several of us who want that answer and remain unable to find it clearly. So that points to a need for a very clear statement of it somewhere that people like us can be referred to in the future. Perhaps the answer is buried somewhere in the mountain of podcasts. But I haven't heard it simply and concisely stated and neither have the others in this thread who keep asking it. So at the very least it would be helpful for him to clarify once and for all. I'm not the only one who has noticed how difficult it is to find this.

I really don't think that's merited or necessary at all. This is a pretty straightforward question being posed to Stefan by a few of us here. So far, he has posted to clarify something like one word or phrase in how the question is worded, but then, once that's clarified, he isn't back to answer the question. What I mean is the boards aren't the only medium through which you can discuss this with him, in the event that he does not respond here in the time frame you desire. I feel like this question is the purpose of the Bomb in the Brain series. I've watched the series a few times now, and I get the feeling that this question is addressed in the series. Am I mistaken? I am aware of the call in show. But I'd rather clear it up on the boards than take time on the call in show honestly. The Bomb in the Brain series is great work, perhaps the best thing Stefan has put out in my opinion. But, if I recall, it shows that abuse causes detrimental brain changes. It doesn't tell us what proportion of the abuse that occurs he believes stems from previous abuse. In other words, it shows that, if a person is abused, they might later have problems since their brain has changed. Some of those brain changes may lead that person to continue a cycle of abuse. But it doesn't tell us whether there are also abusers out there who did not have abuse and either have normal brains or brains that are different due to some other reason besides abuse.

Have you considered calling into the Sunday show? I really don't think that's merited or necessary at all. This is a pretty straightforward question being posed to Stefan by a few of us here. So far, he has posted to clarify something like one word or phrase in how the question is worded, but then, once that's clarified, he isn't back to answer the question. To reiterate, the question, as most recently stated, is this: "My perception is that you believe that poor parenting is the PRIMARY cause of violence and aggression perpetrated by humans. Now please respond to whether that one is accurate or not." Stefan asked for clarification on what primary means and the reply was: "Good question. And it raises a good point which is that I think we all agree that various factors contribute to different extents. None of us believe this is a one-factor issue. By primary, I guess I mean that it is the largest contributing factor in your mind, and, as such, merits the most attention and investment of resources. Is that fair to say?" And added to that was: "And if I'm still not accurate, feel free to just lay out yourself where you see poor parenting, as well as any other factors, in the whole picture of what is behind violence and aggression. How do these factors relate and to what extent do they each contribute?" At that point the ball is really in his court. I know at least a few of us are hoping to get an answer to that. And it's kind of surprising, as important as this is, that there isn't already some article or video or something that says the answer to this directly and concisely. Perhaps this discussion will lead to that, though. And it would be a very valuable resource.

Well geez! I check at the end of my day and this thread has gone berserk. Again it doesn't surprise me since this topic (nature vs. nurture as relates to violence/aggression) is possibly the very crux of what goes on here at FDR. However, I'm bummed out to see what has happened in this thread. At this point in the thread we were zeroing in on Stefan laying out his precise view on this subject. He still hasn't done so clearly. Meanwhile the thread goes on and on so the question posed to Stefan is getting lost in the shuffle. And without his answer, we're all just speculating on his views which is highly inefficient and unnecessary. I would love a return to that point in the thread and to ask Stefan to reply at that point and go from there. And TronCat, as for this racist stuff, give me a break. And if you do have to go in that direction, it would be better if you started a separate thread that makes clear that's your topic from the start. This thread has potential to really resolve some longstanding questions about the FDR philosophy. I'm very interested in it, but not at all interested in this other aspect of it you're suddenly focusing on.

I think he has too much invested in the "nurture is what we can control" message to concede anything. Well I'd rather let him state his viewpoint than keep guessing at it. In Video 3 of his The Fascists that Surround You series, he says "I remain mildly agnostic tending toward environment." But I'd still like more detail about this. I thought we were on the verge of getting that earlier in the thread, but now it just keeps growing beyond where TronCat and I were zeroing in on the issue.

It's obvious that the State would be a natural magnet for sociopaths who seek power and control over others. So are many professions and institutions, including the family unit! Are we going to get rid of those too? It's the exploiters that need to be understood and neutralized somehow. Calling for elimination of the State so exploiters won't use it doesn't make sense to me, not that I am a fan of the State or anything. As you point out, pathocracies occur on all levels of human systems and are mutually reinforcing. We can't and should not eliminate systems. The question is how to "exploiter-proof" them as best we can. In the meantime, unfortunately, this thread has continued to go on and on while what I and TronCat really wanted was to hear Stefan lay out his basic view on the parenting/violence & aggression relationship once and for all. The more the discussion moves on from that, the more I fear we waste our time having debates that would better wait for after he gives his viewpoint clearly so we're not arguing straw men.

Personally, I believe a lot of successful people are sociopaths and it gives them an edge in life. That goes against the UPB argument, I know. Amazon also recommended another book of hers "Pathological Altruism" with this. I'm going to look into that too, since I think that behavior ties into people wanting ineffective, unaffordable government programs, and our giant welfare State. Yes her work on pathological altruism is also very interesting! I tend to think we get distracted by focusing on State vs. Non-State when the real issue is Abusers vs. Non-Abusers. Of course they're very intertwined. But to me the issue of deceptive exploitive people vs. cooperative peaceful people is more primary than Statist vs Anarchist.

I refer once again to this post and the Evil Genes material and quote. I've posted it multiple times in the forums. Nobody ever responds to it as if it was never mentioned and continues saying no resources focusing on the nature side of the debate are being presented. Doesn't her work demand a further look?

This video has been posted in almost every thread where this topic arises. Please look at past threads I've posted in where Fallon's work and what it means has been discussed ad nauseum. And let us not get sidetracked by it in this thread. Here we are wanting to get Stefan's particular view on where exactly and to what extent parenting fits in among the dynamics that lead to aggression and violence. The only argument I've ever heard made against this video is that it's anecdotal and isn't enough to constitute scientific proof of the nurture argument. Of course, that's true, but I've never seen strong evidence or arguments presented by proponents of nature for their own position, just an indirect undermining of the nurture argument through pointing out "there's not enough evidence to give a definitive cause yet". OK, there's not enough evidence - then stop asserting that nature is the primary cause of violence. Or provide some equally strong anecdotal evidence like a peacefully parented person with strong friend and family relationships going on a shooting spree despite being given all the factors necessary in life for good mental health. If you read through my posts on all of this throughout the forums, you'll see two things: 1) I don't claim it's nature, not nurture. I claim we are at a point where we should all still be agnostic. Lo and behold, in "The Fascists that Surround You", even Stefan claims to be a "mild agnostic" on this issue. 2) I have repeatedly suggested people take a look at some of the resources that cover more of the nature side. I've especially focused on the book Evil Genes by Barbara Oakley, suggested Stefan consider interviewing her and zeroed in on one of her statements on page 95 the book that I find very intriguing and demanding of follow-up: "Oddly enough, one study has shown that murderers who have a normal family upbringing have even lower function in their right orbitofrontal cortical areas than murderers who were abused during childhood. Perhaps murderers "without a psychosocial 'push' toward violence require a greater neurobiological 'push.' In other words, children with less severe neurological problems may be helped by having a normal upbringing - but children with more severe neurological difficulties may not be." And here is the footnote for that statement: 12. Adrian Raine et al., "Reduced Prefrontal and Increased Subcortical Brain Functioning Assessed Using Positron Emission Tomography in Predatory and Affective Murderers," Behavioral Sciences and the Law 16 (1998): 319-32. What's clear is that, as I always predicted, this debate hits home and always circles back to the same points. This tells me it's pivotal to everything most FDR listeners care about and has vast implications. In the meantime, I'd still like to hear Stef clarify precisely what his view of the parenting/violence and aggression connection is as TronCat and I have been asking.

This video has been posted in almost every thread where this topic arises. Please look at past threads I've posted in where Fallon's work and what it means has been discussed ad nauseum. And let us not get sidetracked by it in this thread. Here we are wanting to get Stefan's particular view on where exactly and to what extent parenting fits in among the dynamics that lead to aggression and violence.

Good question. And it raises a good point which is that I think we all agree that various factors contribute to different extents. None of us believe this is a one-factor issue. By primary, I guess I mean that it is the largest contributing factor in your mind, and, as such, merits the most attention and investment of resources. Is that fair to say? And if I'm still not accurate, feel free to just lay out yourself where you see poor parenting, as well as any other factors, in the whole picture of what is behind violence and aggression. How do these factors relate and to what extent do they each contribute?

Oh, Stefan, I'm sure you could comprehend that we meant to criticize your assumption that child abuse is responsible for most, if not all violence and agression perpetrated by PEOPLE. Yes this is what I meant, Stefan. And this is the view of your beliefs that I have after watching and reading tons of your work. So if it's not actually what you believe, then at the least it should concern you that for some reason this is what I - and apparently others - are perceiving. "most, if not all" Do you understand that these are enormously different positions, and that trying to mix them together is intellectually irresponsible? For instance, if someone says, "most lung cancer is caused by smoking" (80-90% is), that is a defensible position. If someone says, "all lung cancer is caused by smoking," then you only have to find one instance where it was not caused by smoking to disprove the position. To lump the two positions together as if they are interchangeable is to create a silly strawman not really worthy of response. Stefan, Since you're insisting on very very precise statements, I will further clarify. My perception is that you believe that poor parenting is the PRIMARY cause of violence and aggression perpetrated by humans. Now please respond to whether that one is accurate or not.

What is it about telling parents to quality-consult with their children, about telling parents to be honest with their children about their knowledge, or lack thereof, of morality, instead of obfuscating and guilting, etc, that is so typical to the Parenting Industrial Complex? Comparing Stefan's parenting advice to the kind that hawks playtime tips, seems like a gross and insulting exaggeration. I think unfortunately TronCat has gotten a few separate topics mixed up in one thread: 1) To what extent is poor parenting at the root of humanity's greatest preventable problems? 2) Analysis of Stefan's particular parenting advice 3) Critique of the influence of cultural Marxism on academia. I would prefer if the thread focused on #1. I feel Stefan has overstated the role of poor parenting, even though I agree it's a crucial aspect of the problem. As for #2 and #3, I would prefer they had separate threads as they're really quite different issues.

Yes, indeed it is. Stefan realized that and has replied twice. And I think he would agree that the question of the extent to which child abuse underlies humanity's problems is very important business. That's probably why he has devoted hundreds of hours to discussing it.

That's cute, but I don't think it applies to this thread. What TronCat is focusing on is one of the very most fundamental issues behind Stefan's entire philosophy. It's well worth discussing.

No I haven't, but I'm familiar with it. Overall, of course, we have different theorists that fall all along the spectrum on the nature vs. nurture argument. I think we're a ways away from having solid answers on the topic in most areas. Perhaps, but let us not excuse the influence of cultural Marxism on academia, which continues to push egalitarian assumptions, regardless of evidence. Let us not excuse any form of bias that distracts us from the evidence.

No I haven't, but I'm familiar with it. Overall, of course, we have different theorists that fall all along the spectrum on the nature vs. nurture argument. I think we're a ways away from having solid answers on the topic in most areas.

Oh, Stefan, I'm sure you could comprehend that we meant to criticize your assumption that child abuse is responsible for most, if not all violence and agression perpetrated by PEOPLE. Yes this is what I meant, Stefan. And this is the view of your beliefs that I have after watching and reading tons of your work. So if it's not actually what you believe, then at the least it should concern you that for some reason this is what I - and apparently others - are perceiving.

I didn't say that the rating put me off, I said that the critique of the methodology put me off (which also had good examples why it doesn't really apply much to reality). Might be I still get something out of the book, but I got some books lying around here that I already plan on reading, and considering the description of the method used and the cirtique I don't think I'd get that much out of it. (Also I do't see a point in reading a book which (if the criqtique holds) basically fails to arrive at anything useful for lack of proper method. In the same way I wouldn't read a mathematical proof if it's based on a faulty premise on page 2). (Again this doesn't mean that what I say about the book is necessarily so, but it puts it on the backburner of my "things I want to read in the near future"-list) Then I'm not sure what your point is tbh, I assumed you quoted the circumstance-study as an argument that a peaceful society won't sustain itself somehow (or is always on the verge). Could you maybe summarize what you intended to conclude then from your post in regards to the topic at hand? And to adress your last point: Aside from overtly using force and people not being able to escape or fight back, can you give me an example of people not participating in being exploited when they have the choice? (Or was that what you meant, people basically being basically exploited and captive slaves again?) Is the critique of the methodology by someone qualified to judge the methodology? My point was that we shouldn't just speculate on what we think will happen when cooperators and exploiters interact. We should look to research and evidence. Whatever you think of Axelrod's work, his methodology is a lot closer to valid than "just think about it and post in a forum." The least you can say is he actually played out the scenarios to see what happens, as opposed to just taking educated guesses as we do here. What his work shows - and I am pretty confident is accurate and would be shown by further research, as well (though I want it based on research) - is that there are game theory types of dynamics going on that determine whether cooperation or exploitation flourishes in a particular situation. There is no simple rule like "Corruption never pays" as you were saying. That's simply mathematically not true. An example of people not fighting back might be a group of pacifists whose beliefs lead them to non-violently protest or even attempt to accomodate a corrupt group that is harming them, allowing the corrupt group to simply continue it behavior.

I don't think that's accurate. Stefan is a proponent of the non-aggression principle. So he is against the initiation of force. I don't think he is against violence in necessary self-defense, for example.

This has been one of the main points I've focused on in my posting on this forum - nature vs. nurture as it relates to exploitive, neglectful and abusive behavior. And we're back to it yet again and always will come back to it I expect. Stef's view is based on a pretty strong belief in nurture as the root of violence and exploitation. Although, to his credit, when it comes to psychoapthy/sociopathy, he does say he is a mild agnostic who simply leans toward the nurture side in his series The Fascists that Surround You - a view that I find moderate enough to accept if that mild agnosticism was reflected more often in his work. My view is that this is an open question that requires a lot more research (and I constantly promote the field that should provide a platform for that research, ponerology). Stef does promote some great research about the effects of abuse. But selective use of research can back up one side of an argument without really proving your case. That's why I've pointed to some researchers and authors who focus on the other side that I'd like to see get equal time here. Overall, I love the focus of FDR on improving the world and the passion for it that people have here. I also love the work Stef does on promoting awareness of and tools to reduce child abuse. This is something we should all applaud. But I do wish he didn't extend this to basing his entire philosophy on the belief that child abuse is the whole story and the whole cause for the problems of our world. I think it's one of the main causes, but not the only one. As you bring up, TronCat, we have a first mover problem here where we have to wonder where the original abusive people came from if the abuse only comes from poor parenting. This is a complex topic that should not be oversimplified As we've been discussing in this thread, my view on all this is a more nuanced and complex evolutionary one. I think it is a larger paradigmatic view than Stef's, which encompasses, but also is broader than, his.

I'm not sure Amazon stars is a valid way to judge a scientific book. The question is what do informed experts in the field believe. And I think it's one of the more cited books out there. Anyway I found it very worth reading. And even if you ended up disagreeing with his methodology, that would only mean we need similar studies done with better methodology, not that we should revert to speculation. I think you're confusing me with someone. I never said anything about whether an anarchist society would revert to statism in this thread. One answer I can give you, though, is that firstly, exploitation is not always obvious which is why I keep linking it with deception and secondly, even when people are aware of exploitation, that doesn't mean enough of them are able or willing to fight back to stop it (awareness alone doesn't stop exploitation).

Well, logic just means non-contradiction (overly simply put). you don't need faith in it, since contradictions don't exist. In the same way you don't need faith that there isn't a god who might end the world at some point. But you're right, in that reason and evidence don't work with most people (you're incorrect insofar that this has been traced back to traumas though afaik). Which is exactly why it's most important to have a more peaceful child raising, so that the newer generations become more open to reason and logic (or don't have an automatic emotional flight or fight reaction whenever something they say is shown to be incorrect) What other reasons do you think there are then for people not responding to logic outside of traumas? I go right back to evolution. Humans did not evolve to all make logic their only or even necessarily primary means of coming to conclusions. Even non-traumatized human beings don't all or even mostly work on logic. In fact, if you look at the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, it categorizes people, among other things, as Thinkers (who prefer to make decisions by logical pro/con processing) vs. Feelers (who prefer to make decisions based on their gut instinct). Whatever your beliefs about MBTI, there's no question that many people have a strong preference for one or the other. Why would it be that many people are F rather than T? Why did it evolve to be so? You can imagine in a tribe, where humans evolved, not everyone would need to be logical because they worked as a team. It would make sense to have a certain percentage of Thinkers to help with those tasks that call for stricter logic and a certain percentage of Feelers to deal with emotional issues that are not easily turned into logical problems. So again I don't see it as some evidence of dysfunction that many people don't prefer logic. It is entirely expected that that would be the case and many people, at their healthiest, are Feelers and not Thinkers.

So you're theory is that whether or not people are cooporative or not depends whether the environment allows for it (to put it simply)? Okay, lt's take that for a spin then. So obviously when you say that you're afraid that anarchy will result in another form of statism, you must assume that at some point anarchy has an abundance of recources else the cooporation wold have never taken place. So at that point in time (let's leave out some unexpected natural disaster that eliminates a lot of recources for the moment) the only way for people to be more aggressive/dominant again (and get through with it) wold be if recources would be scarce. Outside of natural causes this cold only happen if certain people would somehow make it so. For people to indulge in that activity they'd need an incentive to do so, something which promises them a return of their time-investment. So would good people want to do that. Obivously not, nothing can be gained from destroying recources and since they are the cooporative ones they have an emotional incentive to not do destroy the future peoples wealth as well. So would bad evil people do it? The same thought applies except minus the emotional incentive. If we assume that evil people are even more interested in their own benefit, then they will have even less incentive to create an environment where there are more evil people, since that would mean less good ones to exploit and more competition on their side. Aside from the utter waste of time destroying recources for everyone, from which they don't get immediate benefits. So neither good nor evil people have an incentive or motivation to create an environment which would lead to another favouring of dominance over cooporation. Evil people because they're selfish and don't want more evil people to compete with them for the exploitation of the good and good people because they're also selfish and don't want to have their peaceful living ruined. The only option that leaves us with is natural disaster of some sort, that can't be avoided or escaped and totally resets civilization back to, well, wherever. This doesn't prove though that it's not possible to have peaceful anarchy that isn't sustainable. It also doesn't prove that there's a constant struggle of the two forces of dominance vs. cooporation. It just means asteroids are kind of the asshole bullies of the universe who take away your hard earned lunch money if you don't defend yourself with a ray gun 1) I recommend that book because they provide research and evidence, not just a made up theory. And I'm certainly not just promoting MY theory. I recommend people read the book and their work. 2) I didn't exactly say whether people (meaning any given person) are cooperative depends on the environment. I'm saying the incentives in the environment determine to what extent cooperation vs. exploitation are advantageous and which will flourish overall. Some people are extremely cooperative in any environment, some are almost total exploiters in any environment, and many have the capacity for both. It's a complex dynamic. 3) I'm not sure I'm understanding your argument. If you could simplify it down more concisely that might help me. But the more important point is this. You are simply reasoning things out in your head. Axelrod actually did research and countless simulations of different environments to find out what really happens, which of the many theories, which all can have arguments that sound good made for them, actually come to pass. And it's often counterintuitive. So my overall point isn't even to debate logically one theory vs. another. My point is that we should stop speculating and look at the research about what goes on in systems as cooperators and exploiters compete.

That has always been something I've thought about. I wonder so often if the focus on statism is really missing the point for the reason you mentioned. If it's possible to make people virtuous, then governments, even if they did form, would be virtuous. I find it more useful to focus on exploitation itself, recognizing some governments as examples of that, just as there are countless others. The focus on one form of exploitive structure, to me, can be worthwhile, but not as the fundamental issue. I get the general feeling that Stefan puts too much faith in logic. I don't believe you can conquer irrationality with reason and logic with everyone, let alone a majority of people, and it isn't just because their brains have been damaged by trauma. I frame it slightly differently. Stefan clearly realizes you can't logically change everyone or even most people. That's why he focuses so much on parenting. But my view is that corruption and exploitation exist in humans not just due to poor parenting, but because, in certain circumstances, they provide an evolutionary advantage. In fact, it is when things become most cooperative and peaceful that people may forget about the threat of deception and exploiters have the most incentive to reappear. The solution I've seen offered is we need a cooperative peaceful society that is based firmly on an understanding of the principles required to maintain such cooperative peace and that builds those protections into the system. In my view it would have to be grounded in the type of research in The Evolution of Cooperation.