4 ms·

Well, there's the armed forces, but the consequences are not so pretty.

by ninguem2 17y ago

LogicHoleFlaw 17y ago
Enlisting is a hell of a lot better option than gang-banging.
- TriinT 17y ago
  I wholeheartedly agree.
TriinT 17y ago
The armed forces are for kids older than 18. I think 13-18 y.o. teenage boys with too much testosterone could use a sort of "boot-camp lite" thing. Instead of shooting weapons, they could focus on less deadly stuff which is equally macho. Say, survival training, martial arts, extreme sports, etc. This would probably never work in Europe because it would bring back memories of Hitler's youth. I am totally pro-freedom and anti-fascism, but I think that leaving teenage boys bored in the cities and suburbs with nothing to do is dangerous. The amount of money spent on teaching them how to fight, rock-climb, whatever, would perhaps be saved in less prisons and criminality. Giving a teenage boy something challenging to do can be a huge self-confidence booster. Moreover, it can allow him to use his aggressiveness in a productive manner.
- dfranke 17y ago
  Why not weapons? With a competent instructor, the accident risk is lower than for any of your suggested alternatives.
  - TriinT 17y ago
    I have nothing against weapons. I actually like them. However, a camp for teenage boys where there's weapons training would be a PR disaster. The feminists would complain that it was a men's conspiracy to impose the old status quo. The far left-wing whackos would compare it to Hitler's youth. I believe that teenage boys can be taught how to shoot, and that they can be trained to use weapons in a responsible manner. An old drill instructor would be required to keep the kids in check, though. Much of this PR nightmare could be avoided if there were no weapons. Martial arts would be OK. By keeping weapons out, you could sell it as an extreme sports camp, rather than a boot camp for teenagers ;-) Image is everything.
    - anamax 17y ago
      > Much of this PR nightmare could be avoided if there were no weapons. At what cost in effectiveness? If you don't tell the loons to get stuffed, your life is run by loons.
      - TriinT 17y ago
        I think the cost would be infinitesimal. Weapons are cool, but not essential. In a way, doing without weapons would be fun. Teach the kids martial arts. Their bare hands would be their weapons. What I like about martial arts is that it's a bit like mathematics. In math you can't fool yourself thinking you know more than you do... your own limitations are right in front of you, in the blank sheet of paper reminding you that you're no Grothendieck. In martial arts you also know your limitations. If you don't, you get your ass kicked really quick. In this age of grade-inflation where all kids are believed to be geniuses until proven otherwise, knowing where you stand relative to your peers is good. Harsh, but it builds character ;-)
        anamax 17y ago
        > I think the cost would be infinitesimal. What is your "thought" based on? > Weapons are cool, but not essential. I've got nothing against martial arts, but AFAIK, they weren't associated with the observed reduction in criminally violent gun use. Assuming that the effect is real and significant, why don't you find it important? I'll state my bias up front - I'm all for reducing criminal violence. (However, that means that I oppose things that don't reduce criminal violence because they make it harder to do experiments and I think that restricting people for no good reason is bad.)
- anamax 17y ago
  > Instead of shooting weapons Why not weapons? The Rochester Youth Study, one of the longest study of youth behavior, found that who kids learn to use weapons matters from a lot. Kids who learn from parents and authority figures are far less likely to use them criminally than kids who learn from other kids. This didn't effect didn't translate to less criminality in general - kids who learned about guns from parents were just as likely to engage in criminal activity, they just didn't use guns.
  - krakensden 17y ago
    Er, but are they controlling for other environmental risk factors? In other words, I would guess that most kids from the suburbs learn to use weapons from authority figures- but they were probably never going to fall on the wrong side of the law anyhow.
    - qaexl 17y ago
      It'd be straight out of Lord of the Flies without some sort of authority figure. I generally think it is a great idea though, particularly about throwing them out into wilderness for survival training and martial arts. Going only by my own memories of being a teenager, 13-18 in our current society is no different than a Milgram prison experiment. That's gotta exacerbate the genetic disposition for violence rather than contain it. Whereas out in the wilderness, violence is simply a part of nature. Martial arts, on the other hand, explores the edges of natural instincts (for violence) and civilizing influences. Taught carefully, a genetic disposition for violence becomes a resource that can be tapped, rather than an external controlling factor. I didn't know that about kids who learn weapons training are less likely to use it for violence. I think I can make use of that.
      - anamax 17y ago
        > I didn't know that about kids who learn weapons training are less likely to use it for violence. It's not "learn weapons training" that's important. It's from whom they learn. Various people have observed that the secret to civil society is dangerous old men who are civil.

Well, there's the armed forces, but the consequences are not so pretty.

LogicHoleFlaw 17y ago

Enlisting is a hell of a lot better option than gang-banging.

TriinT 17y ago
I wholeheartedly agree.

TriinT 17y ago

The armed forces are for kids older than 18. I think 13-18 y.o. teenage boys with too much testosterone could use a sort of "boot-camp lite" thing. Instead of shooting weapons, they could focus on less deadly stuff which is equally macho. Say, survival training, martial arts, extreme sports, etc. This would probably never work in Europe because it would bring back memories of Hitler's youth. I am totally pro-freedom and anti-fascism, but I think that leaving teenage boys bored in the cities and suburbs with nothing to do is dangerous. The amount of money spent on teaching them how to fight, rock-climb, whatever, would perhaps be saved in less prisons and criminality. Giving a teenage boy something challenging to do can be a huge self-confidence booster. Moreover, it can allow him to use his aggressiveness in a productive manner.

dfranke 17y ago
Why not weapons? With a competent instructor, the accident risk is lower than for any of your suggested alternatives.
- TriinT 17y ago
  I have nothing against weapons. I actually like them. However, a camp for teenage boys where there's weapons training would be a PR disaster. The feminists would complain that it was a men's conspiracy to impose the old status quo. The far left-wing whackos would compare it to Hitler's youth. I believe that teenage boys can be taught how to shoot, and that they can be trained to use weapons in a responsible manner. An old drill instructor would be required to keep the kids in check, though. Much of this PR nightmare could be avoided if there were no weapons. Martial arts would be OK. By keeping weapons out, you could sell it as an extreme sports camp, rather than a boot camp for teenagers ;-) Image is everything.
  - anamax 17y ago
    > Much of this PR nightmare could be avoided if there were no weapons. At what cost in effectiveness? If you don't tell the loons to get stuffed, your life is run by loons.
    - TriinT 17y ago
      I think the cost would be infinitesimal. Weapons are cool, but not essential. In a way, doing without weapons would be fun. Teach the kids martial arts. Their bare hands would be their weapons. What I like about martial arts is that it's a bit like mathematics. In math you can't fool yourself thinking you know more than you do... your own limitations are right in front of you, in the blank sheet of paper reminding you that you're no Grothendieck. In martial arts you also know your limitations. If you don't, you get your ass kicked really quick. In this age of grade-inflation where all kids are believed to be geniuses until proven otherwise, knowing where you stand relative to your peers is good. Harsh, but it builds character ;-)
      - anamax 17y ago
        > I think the cost would be infinitesimal. What is your "thought" based on? > Weapons are cool, but not essential. I've got nothing against martial arts, but AFAIK, they weren't associated with the observed reduction in criminally violent gun use. Assuming that the effect is real and significant, why don't you find it important? I'll state my bias up front - I'm all for reducing criminal violence. (However, that means that I oppose things that don't reduce criminal violence because they make it harder to do experiments and I think that restricting people for no good reason is bad.)
anamax 17y ago
> Instead of shooting weapons Why not weapons? The Rochester Youth Study, one of the longest study of youth behavior, found that who kids learn to use weapons matters from a lot. Kids who learn from parents and authority figures are far less likely to use them criminally than kids who learn from other kids. This didn't effect didn't translate to less criminality in general - kids who learned about guns from parents were just as likely to engage in criminal activity, they just didn't use guns.
- krakensden 17y ago
  Er, but are they controlling for other environmental risk factors? In other words, I would guess that most kids from the suburbs learn to use weapons from authority figures- but they were probably never going to fall on the wrong side of the law anyhow.
  - qaexl 17y ago
    It'd be straight out of Lord of the Flies without some sort of authority figure. I generally think it is a great idea though, particularly about throwing them out into wilderness for survival training and martial arts. Going only by my own memories of being a teenager, 13-18 in our current society is no different than a Milgram prison experiment. That's gotta exacerbate the genetic disposition for violence rather than contain it. Whereas out in the wilderness, violence is simply a part of nature. Martial arts, on the other hand, explores the edges of natural instincts (for violence) and civilizing influences. Taught carefully, a genetic disposition for violence becomes a resource that can be tapped, rather than an external controlling factor. I didn't know that about kids who learn weapons training are less likely to use it for violence. I think I can make use of that.
    - anamax 17y ago
      > I didn't know that about kids who learn weapons training are less likely to use it for violence. It's not "learn weapons training" that's important. It's from whom they learn. Various people have observed that the secret to civil society is dangerous old men who are civil.