4 ms·

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 autho

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.
  - qaexl 17y ago
    Right, I forgot to add "authority figure". Among my friends, we call those dangerous old men as having "Old Man Powers". Having had a day to think this over, I'm not sure "authority figure" would be the right attitude either. Even though I'm nearing 30, the demonstration of old man powers still awe me, however, "authority figures" whom I have little or no respect for (the man, not the office) inspires disgust or contempt. I like Neal Stepheson's description the best -- every teenage (boy) grows up wanting to be a badass. I think someone suggested creating a program for this. Although it would give violent teengers of apprenticeship age a chance to integrate into society, that is only the symptom. A more complete solution would be people reading here -- me personally, you personally -- to acquire badass skills and cultivate them in the teenage apprentices, regardless of whether they are likely to be violent or not. Instead of waiting for a far-off government administration to get the genetic testing in place and create special training camps, do what you can do in the local environment. Lend some time to Boy Scouts or Venturing Crew. Or just demonstrate some badass skill to neighborhood teenagers, saying, "Hey. Check this out."
anamax 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 Yes, they were controlling for every environmental factor they could. (FWIW, this isn't a "gun" study. Gun stuff is just one of the things that popped out.) We're comparing kids from the same neighborhoods. And, while legal gun ownership is higher in the suburbs, it isn't unknown in the inner city and it isn't universal in the suburbs. As a result, we can observe "learn from parents" vs "learn from peers" in both situations. > but they were probably never going to fall on the wrong side of the law anyhow. As I wrote, their criminality wasn't affected, just their use of weapons. Correlation vs causation and all that.

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.
- qaexl 17y ago
  Right, I forgot to add "authority figure". Among my friends, we call those dangerous old men as having "Old Man Powers". Having had a day to think this over, I'm not sure "authority figure" would be the right attitude either. Even though I'm nearing 30, the demonstration of old man powers still awe me, however, "authority figures" whom I have little or no respect for (the man, not the office) inspires disgust or contempt. I like Neal Stepheson's description the best -- every teenage (boy) grows up wanting to be a badass. I think someone suggested creating a program for this. Although it would give violent teengers of apprenticeship age a chance to integrate into society, that is only the symptom. A more complete solution would be people reading here -- me personally, you personally -- to acquire badass skills and cultivate them in the teenage apprentices, regardless of whether they are likely to be violent or not. Instead of waiting for a far-off government administration to get the genetic testing in place and create special training camps, do what you can do in the local environment. Lend some time to Boy Scouts or Venturing Crew. Or just demonstrate some badass skill to neighborhood teenagers, saying, "Hey. Check this out."

anamax 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 Yes, they were controlling for every environmental factor they could. (FWIW, this isn't a "gun" study. Gun stuff is just one of the things that popped out.) We're comparing kids from the same neighborhoods. And, while legal gun ownership is higher in the suburbs, it isn't unknown in the inner city and it isn't universal in the suburbs. As a result, we can observe "learn from parents" vs "learn from peers" in both situations. > but they were probably never going to fall on the wrong side of the law anyhow. As I wrote, their criminality wasn't affected, just their use of weapons. Correlation vs causation and all that.