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

[kirk paolinelli]

I'm talking about my strategy.

To live your life free of using violence or aggression towards others.

Your question was :

"Should reducing childhood trauma, strategically, be the #1 objective for those who want to create a peaceful, healthy, sustainable world?"

My approach reduces violence and aggression by at least one person. It doesn't require force to implement. I think this is best way to reduce violence and aggresion.( i.e. that I can actually take action towards.)  A strategy is something you put into action. You don't have a strategy. Unless you can prove my strategy has negative consequences I don't see how you can say doing nothing is better than something. 

It's like I have a strategy to drive to work. You say that I can't prove it's best strategy, better than any possible strategy, even those not thought of. So I should sit at home at not drive to work until enough research is done, so I know i'm taking the best possible strategy to drive to work.

Umm. I think I will stick with my strategy and then if you or anyone else comes up with a better one I will switch to that.

[STer]

 

I'm talking about my strategy.

To live your life free of using violence or aggression towards others.

Your question was :

"Should reducing childhood trauma, strategically, be the #1 objective for those who want to create a peaceful, healthy, sustainable world?"

My approach reduces violence and aggression by at least one person. It doesn't require force to implement. I think this is best way to reduce violence and aggresion.( i.e. that I can actually take action towards.)  A strategy is something you put into action. You don't have a strategy. Unless you can prove my strategy has negative consequences I don't see how you can say doing nothing is better than something. 

It's like I have a strategy to drive to work. You say that I can't prove it's best strategy, better than any possible strategy, even those not thought of. So I should sit at home at not drive to work until enough research is done, so I know i'm taking the best possible strategy to drive to work.

Umm. I think I will stick with my strategy and then if you or anyone else comes up with a better one I will switch to that.

 

 

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?

[sg12]

STer, well one strategy that is clearly not the best is arguing with individuals who are trying to make the world a better place that their view is incorrect without providing evidence. Because if you are wrong, then you are doing a huge disservice to the world. You would be adding to the evil of the world. You would be fighting good people instead of bad people. We are trying to find the best strategy. So if you would kindly explain to us a better strategy then we can discuss this further. But what you are currently achieving is tying up our efforts; you are not "remaining agnostic." By arguing with us you have made your choice on which side's time you would like to tie up.

[STer]

 

STer, well one strategy that is clearly not the best is arguing with individuals who are trying to make the world a better place that their view is incorrect without providing evidence. Because if you are wrong, then you are doing a huge disservice to the world. You would be adding to the evil of the world. You would be fighting good people instead of bad people. We are trying to find the best strategy. So if you would kindly explain to us a better strategy then we can discuss this further. But what you are currently achieving is tying up our efforts; you are not "remaining agnostic." By arguing with us you have made your choice on which side's time you would like to tie up.

 

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.

[sg12]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[STer]

 

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.

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.

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.

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.

[sg12]

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?

Please re-read my statements again.

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.

[STer]

 

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?

Please re-read my statements again.

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.

 

Regardless of your statements, as far as I and several others can tell, Stefan does make the claim that I mentioned. We have repeatedly asked for him to clarify if he does indeed believe this and no clarification has come.

As for other research worth looking at, go through my original post on this board. I have repeatedly offered other resources. Someone mentioned many others in this very thread. There is an entire body of work looking at the nature side of this that hardly gets discussed on this board and is sorely needed to provide a balanced viewpoint.

More importantly, there should be a very strong interest in actively helping all of this research progress further (just as many people are activists to help support research into various illnesses) because the research is not yet at a state that allows for very solid conclusions. Instead, I see most people doing their very best to defend the nurture side and give short shrift to the nature side or even to admitting that we simply don't know enough at this point. This reflects a strong bias that should be concerning to anyone who is a rational empiricist.

[kirk paolinelli]

I'm out this conversation. But here are a couple more strategies you might find useful.

 

What's the best strategy for fishing?

Trolling

What's not the best strategy to have a good conversation?

Trolling

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

 

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

 

I appear to be a little late on the draw here, but upon reading this remark I went into a trance and began channeling a conversation from approximately 1790-1810 AD (according to my I Ching calculations). The part of the conversation I was able to catch was:

"....by 1840, if demographic trends continue, America's red population will be the minority. We need immigration control!"

Nyuk nyuk.

-Dylan

[STer]

 

 

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

 

I appear to be a little late on the draw here, but upon reading this remark I went into a trance and began channeling a conversation from approximately 1790-1810 AD (according to my I Ching calculations). The part of the conversation I was able to catch was:

"....by 1840, if demographic trends continue, America's red population will be the minority. We need immigration control!"

Nyuk nyuk.

-Dylan

 

[TronCat]

 

 

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

 

I appear to be a little late on the draw here, but upon reading this remark I went into a trance and began channeling a conversation from approximately 1790-1810 AD (according to my I Ching calculations). The part of the conversation I was able to catch was:

"....by 1840, if demographic trends continue, America's red population will be the minority. We need immigration control!"

Nyuk nyuk.

-Dylan

 

 

i think you underestimate the current demographic decline of the West.

[TronCat]

 

 

 

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

 

I appear to be a little late on the draw here, but upon reading this remark I went into a trance and began channeling a conversation from approximately 1790-1810 AD (according to my I Ching calculations). The part of the conversation I was able to catch was:

"....by 1840, if demographic trends continue, America's red population will be the minority. We need immigration control!"

Nyuk nyuk.

-Dylan

 

 

 

Did the Native Americans build this great civilization? I didn't think so.

Also, fun fact; Europeans were the first to have immigrated to North America. Professor Dennis Stanford, of the Smithsonian Institute, & Professor Bruce Bradley, have presented archaeological & DNA evidence that proves Stone Age people from Western Europe were the first humans to have immigrated to North America 18,000 to 24,000 years ago at the height of the Ice Age by travelling along the frozen northern part of the Atlantic.

'The North Atlantic ice-edge corridor': http://www.naturaleater.com/science-articles/north_atlantic_ice-edge_corridor.pdf

They also have a book called Across Atlantic Ice, which has redefined history.

 

[Formelyknown]

If I understand catron, The perfect strategy is to give genetic altering pills, nurturing and form racist gated community. No trade should ever be agreed between races.

[TronCat]

 

If I understand catron, The perfect strategy is to give genetic altering pills, nurturing and form racist gated community. No trade should ever be agreed between races.

 

 

No. I am simply in support of races and distinct cultures to self-determine. I want to trade and live peacefully with everyone, but multiculturalism won't do that.

[Kowalski]

I have two questions for STer and Troncat, (obviously you're not obliged to answer):

1) What were your experiences of violence as children?

2) How much money are you donating to the scientific research of the causes of violence? You say that's a more effective thing to do than promoting nonviolence or being nonviolent oneself. I assume, given the degree of criticism you're leveling at this community's approach to the problem, that you're doing what you think will have an impact, right?

[Kowalski]

No. I am simply in support of races and distinct cultures to self-determine. I want to trade and live peacefully with everyone, but multiculturalism won't do that.

Are you in support of distinct human beings to self-determine? Most people enjoy the novelty of interacting with people of different backgrounds, and many form intimate relationships and have children with someone of a different race or culture. I'm not sure how you can advocate the prevention of people doing this without advocating violence..

Also I'm not sure how you can define the nonviolent growth of a demographic or the nonviolent shrinking of a demographic as some sort of attack on white people. As if people moving to a different region, and people having kids are violent acts. I don't see how you can advocate keeping the white population high without preventing the movement or reproduction of people of other races (violence).

[STer]

 

I have two questions for STer and Troncat, (obviously you're not obliged to answer):

1) What were your experiences of violence as children?

2) How much money are you donating to the scientific research of the causes of violence? You say that's a more effective thing to do than promoting nonviolence or being nonviolent oneself. I assume, given the degree of criticism you're leveling at this community's approach to the problem, that you're doing what you think will have an impact, right?

 

Our personal experiences of violence as children are not relevant. None of us is even saying childhood violence isn't a problem or we shouldn't work to stop it. All we've said is that the science does not show in any conclusive way at this time that nurture is primary and nature secondary in causing the overall problems of violence and aggression on the larger scale as Stefan seems to claim. Trying to focus on our personal experience when we're questioning a simple factual claim by Stefan (and one even he himself contradicts at different times in his own work) is a distraction and almost akin to an ad hominem in question form.

This is one of the patterns I've seen many people complain about on these boards over the years. Anyone who questions one of Stefan's view, even simply laying out his argument and asking if this is correct, is peppered with these personal psychological questions that both imply that the questioner can't possibly simply be asking an objective rational question or, at the very least, serve to keep distracting from the question at hand. You aim a question at Stefan's work and in return you don't get a straight answer, but a bunch of suspicious questions about you and your motives for asking. And ironically, if your original question isn't answered that's considered fine, but if you don't answer the distracting follow-ups this supposedly shows that you are not asking your original question in good faith.

No, this thread is about the seemingly contradictory claims Stefan has made about nature vs. nurture in regards to violence and aggression on a global scale. That's it. That's what it's about. Godwin laid out very nicely the various quotes right next to each other and we simply want Stefan to explain if his viewpoint was accurately represented and why there are seemingly contradictory statements. And the fact that that answer is not forthcoming after this long of a thread speaks volumes. In fact, I'm pretty sure the other two people who also had similar questions to me in this thread have given up on ever getting an answer at this point and I'm close to doing so myself.

As for the second question, I have spent most of the last over 2 years working on writing and promoting the work and ideas I bring up in my initial post on this board. It has been a huge investment of time and effort and even my finally joining this board was part of that effort. So yes I am definitely backing up what I talk about with action (and at some personal cost to me). I claim to be agnostic on the roots of larger scale violence and aggression and I back that up by promoting more research rather than claiming that reducing environmental factors is primary. Stefan, on the other hand, appears to claim to be agnostic but at the same time claim that reducing childhood trauma will bring about a peaceful world on a larger scale.

I repeat for the umpteenth time: I completely favor reducing childhood trauma. I simply do not agree that at this time it is responsible to claim that doing so will also bring about some larger scale anarchist peaceful paradise because a world of non-traumatized children will grow into rational adults that agree with FDR's philosophy. I think that is a stretch that cannot be backed up by anything empirical.

[KyleG]

Having been watching this thread, I wanted to say that I commend STer on his patience for continually been asked to answer the same questions repeatedly and doing so in an apparently calm and coherent manner each time.

I have been somewhat frustrated by the experience and the questions aren't even directed at me.

[nathanm]

You can research genetic factors but there's nothing you can DO about it.  Reducing childhood trauma is something people can DO.  If it does or doesn't bring about some definition of an "anarchist paradise" is not as important.  Since we all agree that it's a good journey to be on, I don't see why there should be so much arguing about the nebulous destination.

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

 

No. I am simply in support of races and distinct cultures to self-determine. I want to trade and live peacefully with everyone, but multiculturalism won't do that.

 

I am of the white race in a serious relationship with a girl of Japanese and Korean descent with plans to have children in the future. Are you in support of this?

-Dylan

[AdamC]

 

None of us is even saying childhood violence isn't a problem or we shouldn't work to stop it. All we've said is that the science does not show in any conclusive way at this time that nurture is primary and nature secondary in causing the overall problems of violence and aggression on the larger scale as Stefan seems to claim.

I claim to be agnostic on the roots of larger scale violence and
aggression and I back that up by promoting more research rather than
claiming that reducing environmental factors is primary. Stefan, on the
other hand, appears to claim to be agnostic but at the same time claim
that reducing childhood trauma will bring about a peaceful world on a
larger scale.

I repeat for the umpteenth time: I completely favor reducing childhood
trauma. I simply do not agree that at this time it is responsible to
claim that doing so will also bring about some larger scale anarchist
peaceful paradise because a world of non-traumatized children will grow
into rational adults that agree with FDR's philosophy. I think that is a
stretch that cannot be backed up by anything empirical.

 

Is it your position that all current efforts to prevent violence against children should stop until the nurture/nature debate is settled?

How much do you think those children currently suffering inflictions of violence care about a future "anarchist
peaceful paradise"?

[TronCat]

 

No. I am simply in support of races and distinct cultures to self-determine. I want to trade and live peacefully with everyone, but multiculturalism won't do that.

Are you in support of distinct human beings to self-determine? Most people enjoy the novelty of interacting with people of different backgrounds, and many form intimate relationships and have children with someone of a different race or culture. I'm not sure how you can advocate the prevention of people doing this without advocating violence.

Also I'm not sure how you can define the nonviolent growth of a demographic or the nonviolent shrinking of a demographic as some sort of attack on white people. As if people moving to a different region, and people having kids are violent acts. I don't see how you can advocate keeping the white population high without preventing the movement or reproduction of people of other races (violence).

 

 

If people want to establish mixed societies, they should be able to do so. Also, we can prevent people from coming onto our property, no one has a 'right' to immigrate.

[TronCat]

 

 

No. I am simply in support of races and distinct cultures to self-determine. I want to trade and live peacefully with everyone, but multiculturalism won't do that.

 

I am of the white race in a serious relationship with a girl of Japanese and Korean descent with plans to have children in the future. Are you in support of this?

-Dylan

 

That's your business.

[STer]

 

You can research genetic factors but there's nothing you can DO about it.  Reducing childhood trauma is something people can DO.  If it does or doesn't bring about some definition of an "anarchist paradise" is not as important.  Since we all agree that it's a good journey to be on, I don't see why there should be so much arguing about the nebulous destination.

 

Do you hold this view consistently? If so, I take it you see no purpose in us researching any genetic disorders since there is "nothing we can do about it?"

I've already covered in other threads at length why, even if a disorder is shown to be genetic, it's very very worth knowing that. These same discussions just repeat and repeat.

Beyond that, on a board dedicated to empiricism and rationalism, I find it strange that Stefan can make a claim, be called out that that claim is not supported, and the response is "Well it leads to a good place anyway, so who cares." If he is claiming that reducing childhood trauma will, as the primary strategy, bring about this greater peaceful world, then it is fair game to question if this is a true statement. And if people here are committed to the search for truth, they should be asking the same question.

[STer]

 

Is it your position that all current efforts to prevent violence against children should stop until the nurture/nature debate is settled?

 

It's pretty hard to imagine how you could read my posts and still have to ask that question. But, as I thought I've made clear (including in the very post you responded to), I completely support working to reduce childhood trauma. It is a worthy goal for its own sake. I simply don't think it's responsible to claim that doing so will lead to the grand scale things that people on this board often claim, since we don't know yet exactly to what extent childhood trauma contributes to those larger problems as opposed to other factors.

I support healthy nutrition for kids too. That doesn't mean I think if we give them healthy nutrition, the world's violence and aggression will necessarily be significantly reduced by that measure alone. The latter has little to do with why I support the former. Perhaps reducing childhood trauma will be the primary factor in improving the world as a whole. Perhaps it will only be a minor factor and other things matter more.

My main concern is that if you think reducing childhood trauma is the single primary strategy for addressing global issues, then you stop questioning if other strategies are equally or even more important in the grander scale.

 

How much do you think those children currently suffering inflictions of violence care about a future "anarchist
peaceful paradise"?

 

Very little, which is why I support reducing childhood trauma (and many other things that I think are healthy for children and adults) for its own sake at the same time I support further investigation into the roots of larger scale violence/aggression.

One thing worth noting though is that when attempting to reduce childhood trauma as a public health issue, we still come back to the nature vs. nurture question there too. Understanding why violence and aggression happen on a larger scale may also give us better ways to reduce childhood trauma, as well.

[Kowalski]

Our personal experiences of violence as children are not relevant. None of us is even saying childhood violence isn't a problem or we shouldn't work to stop it. All we've said is that the science does not show in any conclusive way at this time that nurture is primary and nature secondary in causing the overall problems of violence and aggression on the larger scale as Stefan seems to claim. Trying to focus on our personal experience when we're questioning a simple factual claim by Stefan (and one even he himself contradicts at different times in his own work) is a distraction and almost akin to an ad hominem in question form.

Well, you answered the question about whether you materially support what you believe in/are arguing for, so if such questions are irrelevant why answer one but not the other? That seems kind of evasive - why not just refuse to answer both?

The questions are relevant in that they tell the person asking them whether the person they're debating with has processed any traumatic events they have been through in the past and whether they are clouding their viewpoint/arguments, and the phenomenon of experiences shaping and/or warping opinions is pretty universally accepted in the field of psychology. I never said that if someone suffered abuse as a child that whatever argument they're making is wrong.

This is one of the patterns I've seen many people complain about on these boards over the years. Anyone who questions one of Stefan's view, even simply laying out his argument and asking if this is correct, is peppered with these personal psychological questions that both imply that the questioner can't possibly simply be asking an objective rational question or, at the very least, serve to keep distracting from the question at hand.

The implication that you're not asking an objective rational question can be debunked pretty easily by responding to the questions honestly and without evasion.

You aim a question at Stefan's work and in return you don't get a straight answer, but a bunch of suspicious questions about you and your motives for asking. And ironically, if your original question isn't answered that's considered fine, but if you don't answer the distracting follow-ups this supposedly shows that you are not asking your original question in good faith.

I'm neither defending or attacking Stefan's in and of himself, I'm defending the viewpoint that violent experiences as an infant and child increase a person's chances of developing a violent behavior pattern. This is not at all exclusive to Stef, nor is it an unusual or fringe opinion within the field of mainstream psychology. When you frame it that people are simply blindly following stef you're engaging in the ad-hominem style of argument you're accusing people of using yourself.

Anyone who takes a common-sense look at things can see that early childhood violence increases the likelyhood of adult violence. Human children model their behavior on that of their primary caregivers, or highly influential adults within their early lives. This is a proven and commonly accepted fact. If children have violent parents, siblings or family they are by virtue of this fact more likely to be violent themselves. Since the vast majority of people in the world generally do not commit violent crimes like rape and murder, even if some people are literally 100% genetically presisposed to commit acts of extreme violence, they're still a small minority, and reducing child abuse will decrease the violent behavior of people within that group who have the potential not to be violent, thereby further decreasing the size of this already small minority.

If there is a such thing as a person unavoidably prewired for violence then nothing can be done about that until some sort of genetic engineering or voluntary eugenics system is implemented worldwide. So I'm not sure why you have a problem with Stef arguing that people should do something that will have an undeniable and tangible reducive effect on world violence, rather than him arguing for some theoretical engineering of global human genetics that we don't even know for sure is the cause of any violence whatsoever. It's this sort of irrationality that makes people assume that you're arguing from personal issues rather than logic/reason.

No, this thread is about the seemingly contradictory claims Stefan has made about nature vs. nurture in regards to violence and aggression on a global scale. That's it. That's what it's about. Godwin laid out very nicely the various quotes right next to each other and we simply want Stefan to explain if his viewpoint was accurately represented and why there are seemingly contradictory statements. And the fact that that answer is not forthcoming after this long of a thread speaks volumes. In fact, I'm pretty sure the other two people who also had similar questions to me in this thread have given up on ever getting an answer at this point and I'm close to doing so myself.

Are you talking about where Stef claimed he's agonistic on the subject while also claiming that childhood violence is the main cause of most violence? If so, I don't think it's consistent to say both things and don't agree with him doing so, but I'm not arguing for or against Stef, I'm arguing that childhood violence causes adult violence.

As for the second question, I have spent most of the last over 2 years working on writing and promoting the work and ideas I bring up in my initial post on this board. It has been a huge investment of time and effort and even my finally joining this board was part of that effort. So yes I am definitely backing up what I talk about with action (and at some personal cost to me). I claim to be agnostic on the roots of larger scale violence and aggression and I back that up by promoting more research rather than claiming that reducing environmental factors is primary. Stefan, on the other hand, appears to claim to be agnostic but at the same time claim that reducing childhood trauma will bring about a peaceful world on a larger scale.

OK, and do you think what you've done has been more effective in reducing the levels of violence in the world that what Stef has done?

I repeat for the umpteenth time: I completely favor reducing childhood trauma. I simply do not agree that at this time it is responsible to claim that doing so will also bring about some larger scale anarchist peaceful paradise because a world of non-traumatized children will grow into rational adults that agree with FDR's philosophy. I think that is a stretch that cannot be backed up by anything empirical.

I never said you didn't favor reducing childhood trauma. I also don't think anyone here ever said the world would become a paradise - obviously conflict is inherent in human relatonships. All people are saying is that without trauma and abuse, people will be able to deal with those conflicts constructively rather than with multigenerational mass murder. And anarchy isn't "FDR's philosophy", it's just the logically consistent applicaton of standards of behavior to all people. If it's illogical or inconsistent please explain how this is the case rather than just vaguely dismissing it as some sort of bandwagon.

[Kowalski]

 

 

No. I am simply in support of races and distinct cultures to self-determine. I want to trade and live peacefully with everyone, but multiculturalism won't do that.

Are you in support of distinct human beings to self-determine? Most people enjoy the novelty of interacting with people of different backgrounds, and many form intimate relationships and have children with someone of a different race or culture. I'm not sure how you can advocate the prevention of people doing this without advocating violence.

Also I'm not sure how you can define the nonviolent growth of a demographic or the nonviolent shrinking of a demographic as some sort of attack on white people. As if people moving to a different region, and people having kids are violent acts. I don't see how you can advocate keeping the white population high without preventing the movement or reproduction of people of other races (violence).

 

 

If people want to establish mixed societies, they should be able to do so. Also, we can prevent people from coming onto our property, no one has a 'right' to immigrate.

 

Of course - you can prevent any race you want coming onto your property - i.e. whatever land you bought with money from your labor. It's just you can't reasonably or morally claim the entire abstract concept of "Europe" or "America" belongs to an arbitrarty group of people with certain physical traits, and that anyone without those traits who is within that imaginary border is somehow committing an act of aggression, making it OK to use force against them.

[STer]

 

Well, you answered the question about whether you materially support what you believe in/are arguing for, so if such questions are irrelevant why answer one but not the other? That seems kind of evasive - why not just refuse to answer both?

 

I found the second question relevant, but not the first.

 

The questions are relevant in that they tell the person asking them whether the person they're debating with has processed any traumatic events they have been through in the past and whether they are clouding their viewpoint/arguments, and the phenomenon of experiences shaping and/or warping opinions is pretty universally accepted in the field of psychology. I never said that if someone suffered abuse as a child that whatever argument they're making is wrong.

 

Do you apply the same standard to Stefan, who has evaded the questions posed by multiple people in this thread and has been doing so since long before you asked me your question? I would like to see a focus on that evasion so that the questions can be answered.

I'm also confused why you frame this as you debating with me. This thread is about several of us asking Stefan to clarify his own stated views. The fact it has turned into a debate is part of the very problem. We come asking for clarification on his views and instead people jump in and start debating us and asking us questions, instead of asking why our questions aren't being answered.

 

The implication that you're not asking an objective rational question can be debunked pretty easily by responding to the questions honestly and without evasion.

 

I await you applying that same standard to Stefan's not answering the questions posed in the thread.

 

I'm defending the viewpoint that violent experiences as an infant and child increase a person's chances of developing a violent behavior pattern.

 

If you read the statements we've asked for clarification on, you'll notice that they go far beyond what you just said there. Stefan does not make that statement, which is rather reasonable, and then stop there. He goes way beyond that and then builds an entire political philosophy on that going way beyond. And, in addition, some of his statements, which Godwin posted right next to each other earlier in the thread, appear contradictory. So even if you believe what you just said is true, that doesn't make this conversation any less necessary.

 

Are you talking about where Stef claimed he's agonistic on the subject while also claiming that childhood violence is the main cause of most violence? If so, I don't think it's consistent to say both things and don't agree with him doing so, but I'm not arguing for or against Stef, I'm arguing that childhood violence causes adult violence.

 

So you agree there is a contradiction and instead of focusing on me "evading" an irrelevant personal question, you should be focusing on him evading calls to clarify that contradiction. Saying "childhood violence causes adult violence" is so simplistic it doesn't help much. The question is WHAT ELSE causes adult violence, if anything, and in what proportions do these contribute? And "When we go up to the global scale, what is the relationship between violence and aggression on that level and the childhood trauma?" These are unanswered questions. If you think they are answered I urge you to put together a paper showing empirically the answers and it will be quite groundbreaking.

 

OK, and do you think what you've done has been more effective in reducing the levels of violence in the world that what Stef has done?

 

That's like asking someone urging more research into electricity in the early days of electricity whether they've done more to bring light to the world than candlemakers. That question will only be answerable when the type of research being called for is actually done more and pays off with some answers. And if it confirms Stefan's viewpoint, fantastic, then he will have a far more solid basis for making the claims he is currently making. But the simple fact is you should not be making statements that can't be backed up while claiming empiricism.

 

All people are saying is that without trauma and abuse, people will be able to deal with those conflicts constructively rather than with multigenerational mass murder.

 

That is speculation. For all we know, squabbles over limited resources or some other factor will lead to continued violence and aggression even with healthily raised kids. Or perhaps a significant number of exploiters are indeed produced by things other than bad parenting and these will continue to exploit because even well parented kids don't necessarily have enough education of how to resist them just by virtue of being raised well. I hope you're right and that if we reduce childhood trauma, the rest takes care of itself. But you cannot call yourself an empiricist and make such wildly speculative claims and not expect to be called on them.

 

And anarchy isn't "FDR's philosophy", it's just the logically consistent applicaton of standards of behavior to all people. If it's illogical or inconsistent please explain how this is the case rather than just vaguely dismissing it as some sort of bandwagon.

 

The point was I find it incredibly speculative to claim that if kids are raised healthily, they'll all become rational and logically consistent. Within humanity, we have a diversity among many things, including how we make decisions. Many people make decisions emotionally and I believe it's likely still would do so even when raised in a healthy manner because there are strong evolutionary drives for some percentage of us to be more feelers than thinkers. It sometimes seems like people here believe that, in Myers-Briggs terms, if kids were raised in a healthy way, they'd all become "NT" types that think logically and rationally and that this would, of course, lead them to become anarchists. I doubt that.

[STer]

 

 

 

No. I am simply in support of races and distinct cultures to self-determine. I want to trade and live peacefully with everyone, but multiculturalism won't do that.

 

I am of the white race in a serious relationship with a girl of Japanese and Korean descent with plans to have children in the future. Are you in support of this?

-Dylan

 

That's your business.

 

TronCat, I wonder if you would agree that your original post has kind of split into two separate topics and that it might be helpful to take the race stuff into a separate thread and leave this one for the "role of parenting" discussion. I think this thread is being ill-served by having the two sub-threads going back and forth with each other.

[Kowalski]

Also I forgot my most important point: If some people are hardwired for extreme violence regardless of environmental factors, the best way to bring about a society in which these people can be managed either through offering opportunities that minimize their desire for committing violence and the capacity to cause harm to others (good jobs, boxing matches or such, security systems for homes, cheap, efficient self-defense items etc), or by bringing about an society that allows for the best genetic research is one in which the people who have the inbuilt genetic potential to be non-violent are not corrupted by the trauma of early violent experiences. A nonviolent, free-market based voluntary society would be inherently better at solving problems caused by inherently violent people than the bureaucratic statist ones we live in now.

So even granting that some people are completely, unavoidably predisposed to anti-social behavior, the violence that warps inherently nonviolent children into violent adults only hinders society's ability to find solutions for the behavior of the unavoidably violent. In this case child abuse is still the root cause of most violence in the world, just indirectly in terms of hindering solutions for genetically violent people, rather than directly in terms of all violent people being that way purely because of environmental factors.

[STer]

 

Also I forgot my most important point: If some people are hardwired for extreme violence regardless of environmental factors, the best way to bring about a society in which these people can be managed either through offering opportunities that minimize their desire for committing violence and the capacity to cause harm to others (good jobs, boxing matches or such, security systems for homes, cheap, efficient self-defense items etc), or by bringing about an society that allows for the best genetic research is one in which the people who have the inbuilt genetic potential to be non-violent are not corrupted by the trauma of early violent experiences. A nonviolent, free-market based voluntary society would be inherently better at solving problems caused by inherently violent people than the bureaucratic statist ones we live in now.

 

That's a worthwhile hypothesis. I'd like to see it tested more. But I also think one thing being missed is that there is nothing inherent in being raised in a healthy way that prepares you for resisting exploitive people, per se. Just as being raised without exposure to the flu doesn't inherently give you immunity to it or knowledge on how to avoid it. And being raised in a healthy way doesn't suddenly give you the knowledge of how to avoid being hit by a car.

I think that even as we try to reduce childhood trauma, it's crucial that the scientific study of exploiters, where they come from, how they work, what disorders may be involved, and so on, continue and that the public be widely educated on this topic. There are plenty of threats in the world that require specific education to be protected against them. I think that applies here.

So this goes along with the point that simply raising children in a healthy way may not be enough to stop exploitive forces from dominating.

You may be interested in the concept of logocracy, which applies here.

 

So even granting that some people are completely, unavoidably predisposed to anti-social behavior, the violence that warps inherently nonviolent children into violent adults only hinders society's ability to find solutions for the behavior of the unavoidably violent. In this case child abuse is still the root cause of most violence in the world, just indirectly in terms of hindering solutions for genetically violent people, rather than directly in terms of all violent people being that way purely because of environmental factors.

 

I will agree with you that child abuse should be reduced and that doing so is likely to help to some extent. All I take issue with is the single-mindedness with which that measure is promoted on this board as a sort of cure-all that will inevitably lead to a peaceful world.

I can't continue stating this enough. My beef is not with the focus on child abuse. It's with the lack of balance in considering other things that may also be involved and other measures that might also be necessary in addition to reducing child abuse in the context of promoting an entire global political philosophy.

If this site was devoted simply to reducing child abuse and that was its stated focus - just as is the case with a number of such organizations out there - we wouldn't be having this chat. I fully support such work. The only problem that arises for me is when it extends to "And reducing child abuse this way - and without the need to consider other possibly necessary issues - will bring about an overall peaceful world."

[Nathan T_ Freeman]

 

I can't continue stating this enough. My beef is not with the focus on child abuse. It's with the lack of balance in considering other things that may also be involved and other measures that might also be necessary in addition to reducing child abuse in the context of promoting an entire global political philosophy.

 

How can your beef not be with the focus on X, but with the lack of balance between X and Y? That's a self-contradictory proposition. To be balanced between X and Y would mean giving them equal focus.

 

If this site was devoted simply to reducing child abuse and that was its stated focus - just as is the case with a number of such organizations out there - we wouldn't be having this chat. I fully support such work. The only problem that arises for me is when it extends to "And reducing child abuse this way - and without the need to consider other possibly necessary issues - will bring about an overall peaceful world."

 

Your logical fallacy is: strawman.

If you want a personal answer from Stefan, ask a question of him in person. Every Sunday at 10am ET, the lines are open. If you can't be bothered to make an effort to engage on a personal level, then quit demanding a response on a personal level. You're just pissing on our dinner party at this point.

[STer]

 

How can your beef not be with the focus on X, but with the lack of balance between X and Y? That's a self-contradictory proposition. To be balanced between X and Y would mean giving them equal focus.

 

Balance does not always mean equal. For instance, eating a balanced diet means having a healthy amount of a variety of things. We require more of some things than others. When I say there is a lack of balance, I mean factors besides childhood trauma are not looked at nearly enough here. Perhaps they should be looked at equally, perhaps not. I'd be satisfied if even 20% of the focus here was on truly investigating the others aspects, including the work on biological aspects. I'd say it's closer to 0. In fact, it's negative, to the point where even raising the topics results in defensiveness.

 

Your logical fallacy is: strawman.

If you want a personal answer from Stefan, ask a question of him in person. Every Sunday at 10am ET, the lines are open. If you can't be bothered to make an effort to engage on a personal level, then quit demanding a response on a personal level. You're just pissing on our dinner party at this point.

 

Actually, those of us asking for clarification are the ones being straw-manned. We have simply asked a couple very straightforward questions and the response is debates about things we never said or personal questions about us, rather than addressing the specific questions asked (other than one or two people who have posted to agree that there is a contradiction in Stefan's statements).

We did ask Stefan. He was in this thread and responded multiple times, but only to debate small word choices in the questions. As soon as those word choices were cleared up, he never responded again. I prefer having the discussion here in writing since it gives more time to edit and clarify than speaking.

[Kowalski]

That's a worthwhile hypothesis. I'd like to see it tested more. But I also think one thing being missed is that there is nothing inherent in being raised in a healthy way that prepares you for resisting exploitive people, per se. Just as being raised without exposure to the flu doesn't inherently give you immunity to it or knowledge on how to avoid it. And being raised in a healthy way doesn't suddenly give you the knowledge of how to avoid being hit by a car.

Well that's not entirely true - people with absent or abusive parents of the opposite gender tend to be far more susceptible to domestic, sexual, physical abuse and such. And people who have their preferences squashed as children are usually more susceptible to bullying/interpersonal manipulation later on in life and are thus more vulerable to conmen/extortionists and generally manipulative or intimidating people.

But I was talking more about on a global scale than an interpersonal one - a society full of untraumatized people is simply more functional and therefore better equipped to deal with any social or global problem whether it be psychopaths, earthquakes or whatever. So a society in which potentially peaceful people are made violent is less effective at dealing with inherently violent people, if such people exist. That means that even if there were no solution to anti-social behavior other than directly genetically-engineering people or implementing voluntary eugenics (I guess you could use involuntary genetics too but I assume we both agree that would be wrong), a society with less traumatized people would simply be better able to do this.

All I can see an argument for is that Stef should be saying "Solving child abuse is the key, direct or indirect, to solving all problems within society" rather than "Child abuse causes most violence in society". And that's in strictly empirical terms - on a gut/common-sense level I think anyone who has a somewhat high degree of self-knowledge and understanding of human nature based on life experiences kind of gets that child abuse is behind most violent/dysfunctional behavior in the world, but yes that's just an unverified personal opinion, and now that I think of it that's probably why Stef said he was agnostic on the issue - to avoid these kind of accusatory arguments. So I'll take back what I said about him being inconsistent. If Stef is self-contradicting by arguing for environmental factors being the main cause of most violence while also claiming agnosticism, then is the author of Evil Genes self-contradicting too? Because I doubt she would make the claim that she has absolute proof an inherent anti-social personality disorder, so in that sense she's agnostic as well.

I think that even as we try to reduce childhood trauma, it's crucial that the scientific study of exploiters, where they come from, how they work, what disorders may be involved, and so on, continue and that the public be widely educated on this topic. There are plenty of threats in the world that require specific education to be protected against them. I think that applies here.

And what type of society is best equipped to do this? One full of traumatized people or one full of well-balanced people?

So this goes along with the point that simply raising children in a healthy way may not be enough to stop exploitive forces from dominating.

You may be interested in the concept of logocracy, which applies here.

Well, who do you think would be better equipped to live in relative harmony with a genetic sociopath - a well balanced nonsociopath or a traumatized, unconscious nonsociopath?

I will agree with you that child abuse should be reduced and that doing so is likely to help to some extent. All I take issue with is the single-mindedness with which that measure is promoted on this board as a sort of cure-all that will inevitably lead to a peaceful world.

Well that's because it basically is a cure-all by definition. Even problems that have nothing to do with child abuse are better dealt with by well-balanced people who have not been abused.

I can't continue stating this enough. My beef is not with the focus on child abuse. It's with the lack of balance in considering other things that may also be involved and other measures that might also be necessary in addition to reducing child abuse in the context of promoting an entire global political philosophy.

I don't think Stef's ever said that child abuse is literally the only thing in the world that needs to be addressed, just that it's the most fundamental thing. Which it is, even if it's granted that there are genetic sociopaths as I explained.

If this site was devoted simply to reducing child abuse and that was its stated focus - just as is the case with a number of such organizations out there - we wouldn't be having this chat. I fully support such work. The only problem that arises for me is when it extends to "And reducing child abuse this way - and without the need to consider other possibly necessary issues - will bring about an overall peaceful world."

It's true that reducing child abuse will bring about an overall peaceful world. Whatever issues are caused by something other than child abuse are still best dealt with by people as well-balanced and untraumatized as possible and I don't think Stef's ever argued that no other issues are necessary, in fact I've heard him talk quite a few times about non-child abuse related issues