Parenting is not the be-all and end-all...

[DoubtingThomas]

 

 I don't exactly know what the future holds regarding this subject, but I know at least what I would like to do now, and that is to segregate the races and have them live in homogenous states/communities, to preserve themselves, and protect themselves.

 

I think you should take the time to bolster your genetic argument before you rush into eugenics.

[Brandon Buck _BB_]

Thanks. I don't think anyone is arguing that genetics don't play a role in basic brain structure, cognitive ability, etc. The fact that we're all the same species lends to the similarities in those features and for twins, they're surely going to be much closer in similarity regardless of whether or not the pair is reared together or apart. I'm also not sure twin studies can tell us much since the first nine months of any twin pair's lives are spent in the same environment. Owing to the fact that the brain, memories and emotions form en utero, it stands to reason that a significant amount of fundamental brain development has already occured by the time a twin pair is seperated, so the likelihood that the pair will be similar in ability and personality later in life is obovious. With that known, I dont know that a twin study can be of much use unless the pair can be seperated at conception and gestted in two different wombs. Another mark against twin studies (in my mind, at least) is that society writ large tends to treat certain people in similar ways. For example, a pretty, blond headed girl is treated differently than a nerdy, tom boy girl. And, like gender differences, that different treatment ignores economic stature, race, location (within, say, the east and west coasts of the US), et al.

[PatrickC]

I don't exactly know what the future holds regarding this subject, but I know at least what I would like to do now, and that is to segregate the races and have them live in homogenous states/communities, to preserve themselves, and protect themselves.

Wow, where did that come from.. Leftfield indeed..

I'm curious to know how this social program could ever happen.. voluntarily?

[TronCat]

 

I don't exactly know what the future holds regarding this subject, but I know at least what I would like to do now, and that is to segregate the races and have them live in homogenous states/communities, to preserve themselves, and protect themselves.

Wow, where did that come from.. Leftfield indeed..

I'm curious to know how this social program could ever happen.. voluntarily?

 

 

Firstly, the races generally tend to naturally segregate themselves - this can be seen in the demographic population clusters across the world, even in "mixed" and "diverse" countries, like the United States. 

Also, do you not argue for, and the protection of, property rights?

 

[TronCat]

 

 

 I don't exactly know what the future holds regarding this subject, but I know at least what I would like to do now, and that is to segregate the races and have them live in homogenous states/communities, to preserve themselves, and protect themselves.

 

I think you should take the time to bolster your genetic argument before you rush into eugenics.

 

Even Stef is not completely oblivious to this idea. He admitted in his latest interview on Adam vs. the Man that the crime rates in black communities is what skews the crime numbers, particularly in homicide. He also brought up Japan, and how its lower crime rate is indicative of its mostly homogeneously Japanese population.

 

 

[Brandon Buck _BB_]

I'm saying exactly what I said. The reasons are surely as varied as those who ponder the question so I don't think it would be wise to make general assumptions about them.

 

And yes, it's not only possible to approach the topic from a scientific perspective... it's been done. Human beings do posess the ability to be violent and some of us are born with genetic markers for more sociopathy, psychopothy, etc. The reason.tv video that has been offered here talks about just such markers in libertarian minded people. The question is not do genetics provode for these disfuntions. It is why do these disfunctions manifest in some people who have them and not others.

"If you truly believe in non aggression or promoting it, you'd be able to
convince people not to abuse children by saying they are not behaving
ethically using violence and aggression on their children, rather than
scaring them using the nuture argument about how their kid might
not turn out well."

 

If that were true, the plight of middle eastern women and children would be much better, because surely the men who control them have been told they are behaving in an unethical fashion. The problem is that when people hold to irrational beliefs, contrary evidence, appeals to ethics and literally any other argument made only serves to further reinforce the irrational belief.

 

Not to mention... what sense does your argument make if we change the subject from child abuse to smoking? Are we not allowed to encourage people to stop smoking by presenting to them the evidence that smoking increases the potential for lung cancer, heart disease, etc. because it might scare them?

 

I think we must arrange our arguments based on truth. If that truth scares some people, it's still truth.

[TronCat]

 

Thanks. I don't think anyone is arguing that genetics don't play a role in basic brain structure, cognitive ability, etc. The fact that we're all the same species lends to the similarities in those features and for twins, they're surely going to be much closer in similarity regardless of whether or not the pair is reared together or apart. I'm also not sure twin studies can tell us much since the first nine months of any twin pair's lives are spent in the same environment. Owing to the fact that the brain, memories and emotions form en utero, it stands to reason that a significant amount of fundamental brain development has already occured by the time a twin pair is seperated, so the likelihood that the pair will be similar in ability and personality later in life is obovious. With that known, I dont know that a twin study can be of much use unless the pair can be seperated at conception and gestted in two different wombs. Another mark against twin studies (in my mind, at least) is that society writ large tends to treat certain people in similar ways. For example, a pretty, blond headed girl is treated differently than a nerdy, tom boy girl. And, like gender differences, that different treatment ignores economic stature, race, location (within, say, the east and west coasts of the US), et al.

 

To be fair, The Minnesota Adoption Study has been known to exhibit several methodological flaws:



1) Small samples sizes

2) No controls for parental IQ

3) No controls for material IQ in the mixed-race groupings (as the IQ of offspring most strongly reflects material IQ)



The heritability estimates are not the same for all
environments. If the environment changed, so would the heritability
estimate (to some degree). This has been known to psychometricians for
years.



Furthermore, the most commonly cited and generally accepted
estimate for the heritability of IQ is the APA's estimate of 75%  for individuals past adolescence. Their
estimate entails that about 75% of the variation in IQ scores within a
population is due to genetic factors and not the environment.



http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/siegle/research/correlation/intelligence.pdf (p.85)





The heritability of IQ in children has ALWAYS been found to be
quite small as the genes of children get more expressed as they age
(when the heritability of IQ increases dramatically). Heritability
estimates of children are not reliable indicators the heritability of IQ
for people past adolescence.

[thun]

 

Furthermore, the most commonly cited and generally accepted
estimate for the heritability of IQ is the APA's estimate of 75%  for individuals past adolescence. Their
estimate entails that about 75% of the variation in IQ scores within a
population is due to genetic factors and not the environment.

 

This is excactly the point of the picture I posted. Heritability in both those populations is 100% yet plant height is very much dependant on the nutritional value of the soil, which is obviously a non-genetic factor. So even if heritability is 100% you cannot say that shows something is due to genetic factors and not the environment.

[Brandon Buck _BB_]

I didn't read her book because what I read in the reviews leads me to believe it is primarily an opinion based on her obsevations of adult behavior.

[PatrickC]

Firstly, the races generally tend to naturally segregate themselves - this can be seen in the demographic population clusters across the world, even in "mixed" and "diverse" countries, like the United States.

Yes, but that isn't what you said.. You specificaly said, "but I know at least what I would like to do now, and that is to segregate the races[/font] and have them live in homogenous states/communities, to preserve themselves, and protect themselves."

If this is happening naturally, why suggest a need to segregate? So I ask again, how do you plan for this to happen voluntarily?

 

[TronCat]

 

 

Furthermore, the most commonly cited and generally accepted
estimate for the heritability of IQ is the APA's estimate of 75%  for individuals past adolescence. Their
estimate entails that about 75% of the variation in IQ scores within a
population is due to genetic factors and not the environment.

 

This is excactly the point of the picture I posted. Heritability in both those populations is 100% yet plant height is very much dependant on the nutritional value of the soil, which is obviously a non-genetic factor. So even if heritability is 100% you cannot say that shows something is due to genetic factors and not the environment.

 

Yet when I showed you the study before on how nutrition had little significant effect on the outcome of those Korean kids' IQ, as even the malnourished children had an IQ average above the national average in the US, you then said your argument had nothing to do with nutrition, but now it does?

That study I showed you presented that the genes had a more significant effect on the IQ of the Koreans than environment.

[godwin_anarchism]

"If you truly believe in non aggression or promoting it, you'd be able to convince people not to abuse children by saying they are not behaving ethically using violence and aggression on their children, rather than scaring them using the nuture argument about how their kid might not turn out well."

If that were true, the plight of middle eastern women and children would be much better, because surely the men who control them have been told they are behaving in an unethical fashion. The problem is that when people hold to irrational beliefs, contrary evidence, appeals to ethics and literally any other argument made only serves to further reinforce the irrational belief.

Not to mention... what sense does your argument make if we change the subject from child abuse to smoking? Are we not allowed to encourage people to stop smoking by presenting to them the evidence that smoking increases the potential for lung cancer, heart disease, etc. because it might scare them?

I think we must arrange our arguments based on truth. If that truth scares some people, it's still truth.

no, that's not the right analogy. 

The correct analogy would be:

It would be like trying to get someone to stop smoking by saying second hand smoking could cause cancer in other people.  Somehow, their concern for others' welfare would convince them to stop smoking, where concern for his own health was not sufficient an argument to convince him to stop.

See, if the person was convinced violence is morally wrong, it would be so obvious he should not hit his child.  But if that argument didn't work, and you have to rely on the nurture argument to get him to stop, he is not truly a believer in non violence, but in his own self interest to not end up with a screwed up kid.  so if you rely on the nurture argument to achieve your noble objective of reducing child abuse, you should admit that you are trying to appeal to the parent's self interest, and did not achieve the goal of convincing the parent that violence is fundamentally morally wrong.  it is the result you want, but there is a difference in strategy.  

the subtle difference relates to this topic because if you rely on the nurture argument to achieve a moral result, you will resist any challenges to it.

if you relied on persuading people (to stop abusing others) using the non aggression principle, you wouldn't need the nurture argument, and wouldn't have to defend it so vehemently.  it wouldn't turn a nature vs nurture discussion into accusations of it condoning child abuse.

[TronCat]

 

Firstly, the races generally tend to naturally segregate themselves - this can be seen in the demographic population clusters across the world, even in "mixed" and "diverse" countries, like the United States.

Yes, but that isn't what you said.. You specificaly said, "but I know at least what I would like to do now, and that is to segregate the races and have them live in homogenous states/communities, to preserve themselves, and protect themselves."

If this is happening naturally, why suggest a need to segregate? So I ask again, how do you plan for this to happen voluntarily?

 

By 2040, if demographic trends continue, America's white population will be the minority. We need immigration control.

[Nathan T_ Freeman]

 

 

Firstly, the races generally tend to naturally segregate themselves - this can be seen in the demographic population clusters across the world, even in "mixed" and "diverse" countries, like the United States.

Yes, but that isn't what you said.. You specificaly said, "but I know at least what I would like to do now, and that is to segregate the races and have them live in homogenous states/communities, to preserve themselves, and protect themselves."

If this is happening naturally, why suggest a need to segregate? So I ask again, how do you plan for this to happen voluntarily?

 

By 2040, if demographic trends continue, America's white population will be the minority. We need immigration control.

 

And... there it is. I think we all understand just exactly what the story is now.

Please don't feed the troll.

[LovePrevails]

Of course we  consider the relative karma of the soul which has incarnated and whether it was good or bad in its past life as well as its nature, nurture, free will and heredity

[TronCat]

 

 

 

Firstly, the races generally tend to naturally segregate themselves - this can be seen in the demographic population clusters across the world, even in "mixed" and "diverse" countries, like the United States.

Yes, but that isn't what you said.. You specificaly said, "but I know at least what I would like to do now, and that is to segregate the races and have them live in homogenous states/communities, to preserve themselves, and protect themselves."

If this is happening naturally, why suggest a need to segregate? So I ask again, how do you plan for this to happen voluntarily?

 

By 2040, if demographic trends continue, America's white population will be the minority. We need immigration control.

 

And... there it is. I think we all understand just exactly what the story is now.

Please don't feed the troll.

 

 

How am I a "troll"? Simply because I think preserving and protecting the white race is important for our species?

Also, let us not drift from the initial reason for this thread - violence and agression in humanity, and where it derives.

[Stephen C]

Tron was kind enough to inform me that the be all and end all is genetics and nature. Thank you, Tron.

[TronCat]

 

Tron was kind enough to inform me that the be all and end all is genetics and nature. Thank you, Tron.

 

I actually did not say this. I have been quite clear that I am not a genetic determinist.

[Brandon Buck _BB_]

Thanks for the correction on the analogy.

 

As for the rest, I'm not relying one position or another because I think it will help an argument. That fact is that abusing children is harmful to them and obviously, it is immoral. Whether I argue that point or not has no bearing on the truth of the matter.

 

I'm also curious as to what makes you think I'm defending the nurture argument as though it were a political position?

[Brandon Buck _BB_]

With all due respect, what you think has nothing to do with the truth.

 

The truth is that all humans of all races are decended from the same few apes in Africa. Different skin colors and other visible traits are the result of immigrating from Africa to different climates on different continents. So in the end, since we are all the same species, there is no such thing as racial inbreeding.

[Stephen C]

 

 

Tron was kind enough to inform me that the be all and end all is genetics and nature. Thank you, Tron.

 

I actually did not say this. I have been quite clear that I am not a genetic determinist.

 

I'm sorry, Tron. I thought when I asked you what the be all and end all is you said "genetics and nature". This is wrong. I can see now that isn't what you said. Thank you for the correction. 

What is the be all and end all? 

[TronCat]

 

 

 

Tron was kind enough to inform me that the be all and end all is genetics and nature. Thank you, Tron.

 

I actually did not say this. I have been quite clear that I am not a genetic determinist.

 

I'm sorry, Tron. I thought when I asked you what the be all and end all is you said "genetics and nature". This is wrong. I can see now that isn't what you said. Thank you for the correction. 

What is the be all and end all? 

 

I would say for me it is to protect my freedoms, and preserve the white race.

[Stephen C]

 

 

 

 

Tron was kind enough to inform me that the be all and end all is genetics and nature. Thank you, Tron.

 

I actually did not say this. I have been quite clear that I am not a genetic determinist.

 

I'm sorry, Tron. I thought when I asked you what the be all and end all is you said "genetics and nature". This is wrong. I can see now that isn't what you said. Thank you for the correction. 

What is the be all and end all? 

 

I would say for me it is to protect my freedoms, and preserve the white race.

 

Thank you for informing me that the be all and end all is to protect your freedoms and preserve the white race. I like knowledge.  

I don't know where I got "genetics and nature" from. Sorry about that. 

[godwin_anarchism]

also curious as to what makes you think I'm defending the nurture argument as though it were a political position?

 

 in general I feel the topic has generated controversy and defensiveness.

I felt that way reading the original text I quoted from your post which seems to accuse those that support some genetic explanations and research as motivated by their own participation in child abuse:

Apologists for the nature side of the argument often assert nature as an excuse for poor parenting, even in the face of strong evidence suggesting that violence is harmful to children and that humans aren't naturally inclined toward violence. Over the past forty odd years, the peaceful parenting movement has provided considerable evidence for the latter.

With all that said, I think it's imperative that those who argue so strongly for nature and against nurture ask themselves what it would cost them personally to admit that environment is the single most influential factor in determining whether or not human beings will act irrationally on the violent capabilities they naturally possess.

 

 

I also engaged in some speculation that FDR does not want to dicuss this topic because it relies on the narrative that abused children turn out stupid and violent in order to scare parents to be non violent because it was more effective than convincing people all initiation of violence is wrong.

[STer]

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.

[Stephen C]

 

I would say for me it is to protect my freedoms, and preserve the white race.

 

I can see how these are very important things. I would like you to have as much freedom as possible. Also, I would like you and all your future bloodline to survive and thrive.  I wish you the very best and more in achieving these things, do you have a plan?

[KyleG]

 

 

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.

 

 

Have you considered calling into the Sunday show?

 

[STer]

 

 

 

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.

 

 

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.

[KyleG]

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

[Nathan T_ Freeman]

 

 

Have you considered calling into the Sunday show?

 

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.

This is a pretty straightforward question being posed to Stefan by a few of us here.

Sure, you and the Aryan Brotherhood.

"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?"

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.

"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?"

Again, already answered in podcasts. Navel gazing over percentages of influence is misdirection.

At that point the ball is really in his court.

No, at this point the ball is already being carried through the victory lap. You just keep running the race anyway.

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.

Already published multiple times. You just keep plugging your ears.

[STer]

 

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

[STer]

 

 

 

Have you considered calling into the Sunday show?

 

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.

This is a pretty straightforward question being posed to Stefan by a few of us here.

Sure, you and the Aryan Brotherhood.

"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?"

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.

"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?"

Again, already answered in podcasts. Navel gazing over percentages of influence is misdirection.

At that point the ball is really in his court.

No, at this point the ball is already being carried through the victory lap. You just keep running the race anyway.

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.

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.

[TheRobin]

well, are there abusers that have been clearly shown to have not experienced any (or extremely limited and little) abuse?I'm sure you know that negatives can't be proven and that the burden of proof of the existence of such people rests on the shoulers of whoever makes the claim.

[STer]

 

well, are there abusers that have been clearly shown to have not experienced any (or extremely limited and little) abuse?

I'm sure you know that negatives can't be proven and that the burden of proof of the existence of such people rests on the shoulers of whoever makes the claim.

 

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.

[TheRobin]

well, do you have any other statistic that correlates another type of cause to becoming aggresive?