Notices
Results 1 to 50 of 50

Thread: The death of emotion

  1. #1 The death of emotion 
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    817
    Society is lacking something of importance, something often considered more of a burden today than a boon. So-labeled "negative' Emotions in modern society are rapidly falling into disfavor, particularly jobs involving other humans. In social interactions, you're expected to be "polite", kind, and reserved or happy. So-called "negative" emotions, such as anger, depression, apathy, indifference, are strict taboos in most forms of social interaction. Even sadness is on its way out, for expressing it generates more "weirdness" than support or aid. It would seem that our culture tries to eliminate these feelings by making their expression taboo, or trivial and unjustified, rather than removing their cause. Labels like "emo", "angst", etc, are part of this concerted effort to invalidate justified feelings of others. This problem is compounded further by the lack of scientific or professional attention toward it, which explains the lack of official sources cited. With this premise in mind, the argument after presents consequences of this environment.

    Our culture, by repressing expressions of "negativity" in as many forms as possible, creates a precedent. An expectation that no human is allowed to express their true feelings "on the job" or, in many cases, ever. Repression of anger was a long-time problem, resulting in increased homicides and violent crime, until the popular use of video games to indulge in it. Rather than acting on our emotions to justifiably change reality, we're forced to control them and indulge in things that don't matter. Expressing these "negative" feelings in unapproved scenarios, especially on the job, will result in immediate social ramifications. The unconscious response to these expressions is possibly one of resentment and anger, e.g "How dare he/she be allowed to express what I must repress".

    It is further postulated that these precedents for social ramifications and expression denial create an environment that supports the development, growth, and procreation, of individuals with no need for such expression. These individuals are "sociopaths", give for take some symptoms, and are of the non-homicidal variety. It's very important to realize that sociopaths created by this system are created due to the environment after birth. This in mind, they retain most of the non-homicidal symptoms while still appearing "normal", and retain some (very minor) capacity to express "negative" emotions. I will list below a number of symptoms associated with psychotic disorders, and a small description as to why they're common. It is further suggested, by this list, that those highest up the business ladder will retain more of these traits and/or be closer to a homicidal sociopath.

    * Grandiose sense of self-worth is necessary for any job, as jobs require you to "sell yourself" to your employer.

    * Superficial charm is required for all jobs that involve other people, even coworkers. You can be fired for "not smiling", or failure to be cheerful at all times. If not, it can cost you that promotion.

    * Criminal versatility is very common for getting ahead. The past 20 years of corporate scams, individual scams, thefts, etc, are all committed by otherwise "normal" individuals.

    * Reckless disregard for the safety of self or others is often disguised as actual care for safety. A good example of this are the many structural deficiencies in bridges throughout the United States, as well as buildings, roads, etcetera. Corporations are notorious for this as well, as 9/11 was only possible due to lax security. Corporate individuals especially don't care about safety, it cares about saving money. Currently it does that by avoiding lawsuits, but only with "just enough" security policies built up over the years. No extra precautions are ever taken.

    * Irresponsibility is so common in society I don't think I need to list examples. A war we can't win? Giving loans/mortgages to people that can't afford them? On an individual level, money management?

    * Pathological lying is a requirement for just about everyone, as telling the truth can have physical, legal, monetary, and "spiritual" repercussions, all of them negative.

    * Lack of empathy is a requirement for many things, including firing employees. Not caring who gets in your way, and for the ends to always justify the means, allows indiscriminate action for career advancement.

    * A sense of extreme entitlement is required for higher achievement, for without this you become too content with squalor. "Why settle for this when I am ENTITLED TO..." is also responsible for frivolous and absurd lawsuits.

    * Poor judgment, failure to learn from experience is, again, painfully obvious. Our economy? Individual examples are more numerous than I care to list.

    * Inability to distinguish right from wrong is the most common symptom, as the majority of people believe in "moral relativism", in which objective morality doesn't exist and "right" or "wrong" are simply subjective labels. This means, ultimately, nobody can KNOW what is right or wrong. Variations of this philosophy exist, of course, but overall most people define "right" or "wrong" by biblical tradition more than proper reasoning.

    The consequences of these are far reaching, but for me it is the individuals that cannot cope that I worry about. The individuals that do terribly at repressing themselves, that are institutionalized for various disorders and anxiety problems, that aren't allowed to function as humans in normal society. It's even more unfortunate that the above is also required to care for these individuals, thereby eliminating any real "service" that could be done. I would list the many, many, horrors experienced by foster care, psychiatric care units, etc, but it's not relevant.


    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Freshman Incoming Dessert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    North Yorkshire, England
    Posts
    81
    People in shops are happier (and therefore likely to buy more) to be served by an apparently happy person. It's a business technique. It has a place.


    The wise man believes half of what he reads. If he knew which half to believe, he'd be a much wiser man.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    817
    Its "place" isn't what is being argued. What is being argued, in summary, is the damage such methods cause.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nirgendwo und Ueberall
    Posts
    1,296
    In social interactions, you're expected to be "polite", kind, and reserved or happy. So-called "negative" emotions, such as anger, depression, apathy, indifference, are strict taboos in most forms of social interaction.
    I think that it's really fucking unfair to make employees fake emotions. Do you know how tiring that it is on me to pretend I care? This extends to relationships too..you have to grin and bear it and pretend you're not the horny dog nature intends you to be.

    An expectation that no human is allowed to express their true feelings "on the job" or, in many cases, ever.
    Yea. You're right about the ever statement. I can't even express anger at home. Well..I can...but I can never get my dad to understand the cause. He says ,"you're being belligerent" whenever I get angry, even if I have a valid reason for being outraged. It makes me doubly mad that he is such a fruit that he uses the word belligerent..LOL... Sometimes I feel that you have to punch someone in the face before they will listen to what ails you.

    Inability to distinguish right from wrong is the most common symptom, as the majority of people believe in "moral relativism", in which objective morality doesn't exist and "right" or "wrong" are simply subjective labels. This means, ultimately, nobody can KNOW what is right or wrong. Variations of this philosophy exist, of course, but overall most people define "right" or "wrong" by biblical tradition more than proper reasoning.
    I think the majority of people in the US don't believe in moral relativism. My friends and family are always telling me to "do right by God", whatever that means. They believe in the mighty Pimp Hand of God. No room for relativism.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Darius,
    I think you are talking crap. I don't like the way you wrote it. I thought your sentence structure stank. Your vocabulary was not varied enough. I hate the persistent use of black print. Your avatar really annoys me. I suspect there is litter on your street and that pisses me off. People with small feet should be removed from society and incarcerated in dark dungeons.
    JG


    Was that negative enough for you? 8)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    817
    I laughed my ass off.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Ph.D. Leszek Luchowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Gliwice, Poland
    Posts
    807
    Thank you Darius, you have methodically analyzed and explained what I have long been observing: the rise of a new primate species. It's only sociopathic by our outdated, human standards.

    The Pithecanthropus Victor.
    Leszek. Pronounced [LEH-sheck]. The wondering Slav.
    History teaches us that we don't learn from history.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    So you think modern society is becoming more polite? And that violent video games result in a reduction in homicides? I would like to see your evidence for that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    817
    Leszek Luchowski, quite the contrary, such standards have never been formally presented in entirety; rather, only ever expressed in bits and pieces in religious literature. My personal standards are for a cooperative human race not the inevitable equivalence of an ant hill.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    So you think modern society is becoming more polite?
    This is an undeniable fact, as it's obviously required for even the most menial jobs. "Welcome to Costco!", "Welcome to Wal-mart! :3", "Welcome to McDonalds! :3". I know not of any official studies on the phenomenon, but simple observation in your local stores will likely be enough. Also the level of overall agreement with the notion so far.

    For a personal experience, I've been fired in my youth for "not smiling enough".

    And that violent video games result in a reduction in homicides?
    An episode of Bullshit! covered this, and there are about a bajillion articles online providing statistical evidence for the fact. I'll just list this source to get you started, and I assume you're going to read related material before jumping to disagree.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Ph.D. Leszek Luchowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Gliwice, Poland
    Posts
    807
    I don't quite understand your reply, Darius.

    1) Are you saying that no human standards exist or have been properly formulated (except for "bits and pieces in religious literature") by which to define who is and who is not a sociopath?

    2) What do you call "the inevitable equivalent of an ant hill", and in what way is it so very different from your ideal of a cooperative human race? IMHO ant colonies are cooperative societies if ever there was one.
    Leszek. Pronounced [LEH-sheck]. The wondering Slav.
    History teaches us that we don't learn from history.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    817
    Quote Originally Posted by Leszek Luchowski
    I don't quite understand your reply, Darius.

    1) Are you saying that no human standards exist or have been properly formulated (except for "bits and pieces in religious literature") by which to define who is and who is not a sociopath?
    Sorry, I was referring to standards of behavior and emotional acceptance in general.

    2) What do you call "the inevitable equivalent of an ant hill", and in what way is it so very different from your ideal of a cooperative human race? IMHO ant colonies are cooperative societies if ever there was one.
    A cooperative society still maintains its individuality, even encourages it. This psychotic breeding ground breeds out that individuality as much as possible, thus transforming into an ant hill.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    So you think modern society is becoming more polite?
    This is an undeniable fact, as it's obviously required for even the most menial jobs. "Welcome to Costco!", "Welcome to Wal-mart! :3", "Welcome to McDonalds! :3". I know not of any official studies on the phenomenon, but simple observation in your local stores will likely be enough. Also the level of overall agreement with the notion so far.

    For a personal experience, I've been fired in my youth for "not smiling enough".
    I think I've been around a little longer than you, yet I don't ever recall shop owners making me feel unwelcome when I came into their establishments with the prospect of spending money. So I don't think you have established any trend.
    And that violent video games result in a reduction in homicides?
    An episode of Bullshit! covered this, and there are about a bajillion articles online providing statistical evidence for the fact. I'll just list this source to get you started, and I assume you're going to read related material before jumping to disagree.
    "Bullshit" and "empiresofsteel.com" are not very credible scientific references. I read the empires of steel article and even they stopped short of claiming that video games reduce homicide. They showed a correlation between dates of introduction of video games and a reduced homicide rate, but correlation is not the same as causation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    817
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    I think I've been around a little longer than you, yet I don't ever recall shop owners making me feel unwelcome when I came into their establishments with the prospect of spending money. So I don't think you have established any trend.
    That wasn't the point, and from this perspective I can only assume you're a troll. Either that or incredibly elitist, and given your little comment about age I'm definitely leaning toward elitist.

    "Bullshit" and "empiresofsteel.com" are not very credible scientific references. I read the empires of steel article and even they stopped short of claiming that video games reduce homicide.
    The figures that made that chart are publicly available, and Bullshit! has its own research team. I presented both examples so you could actually make some minor effort to read on your own. Pardon me for assuming too much from your person.

    They showed a correlation between dates of introduction of video games and a reduced homicide rate, but correlation is not the same as causation.
    Yes, it just happens to correlate exact evidence showing violence rates drop at the exact same time one of the most popular FPS games was released, in the exact age range responsible for the most gaming. At the very least it adds a lot of plausibility to my argument and a lot of implausibility to yours. Incidentally, THIS article provides additional correlations that further strengthen my assertion: The release of Quake, GTA, etc, have all seen drops in crime rate immediately after release.

    Lets even look at the crime rates separately! Before the invention of more violent video games, two of the most bloody eras in American history were born. After the invention and even WIDER spread thereof, violent crime rates are still at an incredible low, and possibly dropping further. It's obvious there is no evidence for any claim that video games increase violence.

    Further reading:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_g...e_and_violence
    http://www.sciencecentric.com/news/a...php?q=08051509
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    That wasn't the point, and from this perspective I can only assume you're a troll. Either that or incredibly elitist, and given your little comment about age I'm definitely leaning toward elitist.
    You really felt it was necessary to post this response to such a level-headed and topical point of his?

    In my experience, general displays of manners has gotten worse. Note the operative words. Fake politeness has always been there, yet you might be able to make a (more feasible) case for an increase in "manners" in correlation with the boom in the chain-store food market. Do the studies compare demographics as well?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    817
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    \In my experience, general displays of manners has gotten worse. Note the operative words. Fake politeness has always been there, yet you might be able to make a (more feasible) case for an increase in "manners" in correlation with the boom in the chain-store food market. Do the studies compare demographics as well?
    Older people always claim things are getting worse. I have a book from the 15th century that references to it, even! Fact is, politeness is socially enforced now more than ever, especially on the business end. The only thing you may be seeing is an increasing divide between those that CAN put up that fake smile, and those that CAN'T (thus made miserable).

    As I said, no studies on this concept seem to have been done, because nobody seems to be noticing.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    When was Roe v. Wade, Darius?
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    817
    Relevance?
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Well, the only people who would be aborted are those who would be unwanted. Unwanted children are far more likely to become criminals than those who are showered with love and are wanted to be had. So, Roe v. Wade, being the legalization of abortion, may be very relevant to this topic of explaining the drop in crime rate. When was the court case?
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    817
    1973. Nice try though, and I'm not being sarcastic. The reasoning behind thinking it's responsible is certainly sound, but there are some factual issues with it.

    For one, 'unwanted babies' are usually considered 'unwanted' until birth, when chemical-generated "bonds" start to develop between mother and child. It depends on what you mean by "unwanted". Rape-created children are...the most extreme sort of unwanted.

    Also, due to the correlation with crime, poverty, and religion (the poorest are the most religious), it's VERY unlikely that the crime-generating poverty level would support abortion.

    http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

    This website sort-of supports my reasoning (I just found it). As you can see, middle-higher income brackets have the most abortions.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    what's really sad is it DOESN'T support you're reasoning. 75% of abortions are to religious women, specifically of the christian religions. A majority (52%) to women under 25, again an age group that is often not in the mind set to care for a child, making the child have a feeling of being unwanted, whether it's true or not, and thus much more likely to turn to crime. 93% of abortions are due to the child being unwanted or inconvenient, still supporting my theory. 28.7% of abortions are to poor women(sub $15,000 income), and that's a large portion; albeit middle income ($30-60k income) receive 38% of abortions, I'll give you that. My point still stands, and isn't by any means implausible. If anything, it's rather likely, and if you've ever read the book Freakonomics by Steven D. Levitt, you'll understand how my point stands and why I feel it's actually quite likely for an explanation in the drop in crime.

    edit; 48.2% of abortions are sub 30k per year, 51.8 are post 30k per year. not that big of a difference, in all reality.

    All of the information in this post came from you're site. Oh, and 64.4% of women who get an abortion are unmarried. these all support that the child will likely be either uncared for, or will end up feeling unwanted.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    That wasn't the point, and from this perspective I can only assume you're a troll. Either that or incredibly elitist, and given your little comment about age I'm definitely leaning toward elitist.
    The comment about age was merely to establish my credentials for observing an increase in politeness or lack thereof, in 50 plus years of shopping in stores. If you can present a personal anecdote as evidence, then so can I.

    It's obvious there is no evidence for any claim that video games increase violence.
    Well, okay then. That's a lot different than your original, rather positive statement that video games decrease murder rates. I claim victory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    817
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    I claim victory.
    Keep trolling.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    I claim victory.
    Keep trolling.
    I still don't get how you equate what he is posting with trolling?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    817
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    what's really sad is it DOESN'T support you're reasoning. 75% of abortions are to religious women, specifically of the christian religions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    (the poorest are the most religious)
    That was not quantity, but rather quality. Richer individuals are more liberal, including in religion, while poorer individuals are more religious (in terms of quality). If you compare statistics of which religion is most popular depending on income bracket, or set of beliefs, you'll see some interesting results.

    a majority to women under 25, again an age group that is often not in the mind set to care for a child, making the child have a feeling of being unwanted, whether it's true or not, and thus much more likely to turn to crime. 93% of abortions are due to the child being unwanted or inconvenient, still supporting my theory.
    Perhaps it would do well if you checked some abortion statistics, and perhaps try to read my sources that I already linked, which altogether prove you're incorrect.

    These websites show direct correlation between video games and immediate drops in crime rate, and the first one shows a steady and slightly increasing crime rate from 73-93, which makes no sense with your theory because children from the 73-75 generation should have (according to the rather steady abortion statistics) been less violent in their youth AND adulthood. Clearly this was not the case until after violent gaming hit mainstream.

    28.7% of abortions are to poor women(sub $15,000 income), and that's a large portion; albeit middle income ($30-60k income) receive 38% of abortions, I'll give you that. My point still stands, and isn't by any means implausible.
    As I demonstrated above, it's wrong, and if it was right we'd see crime rates drop as a steady function of abortion rates. As the statistic website shows, abortion rates have been rather static over the years in spite of continued crime rate falls. As this website shows, you can even directly correlate the release of violent video games with drops in crime, particularly among youth.

    edit; 48.2% of abortions are sub 30k per year, 51.8 are post 30k per year. not that big of a difference, in all reality.
    You can't draw an arbitrary line down the middle like that, you have to take into account each economic class, as each class has a different income bracket that ultimately will reflect their likely political, educational, and religious choices. This website does a half-decent job of splitting up the separate classes, but not nearly well enough (it misses out on further distinctions from higher-lower, etc).

    All of the information in this post came from you're site.
    Pity you apparently didn't pay attention to my other sourced material. I've presented nothing new to prove you incorrect. I'd advise reading the whole discussion next time.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Darius, how long does it take for a child to become a violent criminal? 3 years? 15 years? 20 years? what, when does a child most often become a primed violent criminal? How long would it take for the effects of Roe v. Wade to be felt? Perhaps 15, 20 years? The first website shows that the amount of homicides, not violent crime on the whole. Taken that, the 14-17 age group stagnates about 16-17 years after Roe v. Wade, About expected, while the 18-25 stagnates 20 years later and declines rapidly 25 years after. these are great correlations. 25+ also stagnated at the 27 years later mark. Doom was released in 1993, 20 years after. How do you account for the stagnation before that date in teenage males?

    Your other links weren't related to abortion... I checked, it was all about video games and violent crime. I offered a different explanation. Your hostility is off base and non-productive. Your reasoning was that, originally, it was Violent Video games that reduced crime, and that is the reasoning that I claimed wasn't supported. The correlations you drew on about poor people being religious is irrelevant. You have NOT proven me incorrect, only that you are only taking one possible course, and it happens to be a course that is silly, saying that violence in video games reduces violent crime. The correlation exists only in the 90's, and while more and more violent video games are released, we AREN'T seeing a dramatic reduction in violent crime still prevalent and in accordance to this BS theory. Sorry.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    817
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    How long would it take for the effects of Roe v. Wade to be felt? Perhaps 15, 20 years?
    It's your theory, not mine. You tell me. I'm quite certain that the effects would be obviously immediate the minute that generation (and following ones) entered age 14-17, then 18-24 (as used in the statistics). Instead of this immediate effect, however, no real change is shown until the release of Doom. In fact, an increase begins just before. How do you account for this?

    The first website shows that the amount of homicides, not violent crime on the whole.
    Someone clearly isn't reading my sources thoroughly. Second statistic down from the homicide statistic on the Empires website is violent crime, using the same graph as This.

    Taken that, the 14-17 age group stagnates about 16-17 years after Roe v. Wade, About expected
    That's the exact opposite effect that your abortion theory predicts. By aborting all unwanted children, according to your premise that they're most likely to commit said crimes, a rapid drop would be present as soon as the 73-75 age group became 14. Such a drop is not shown to exist, and in fact increases begin as more of these abortion-affected generations grow up.

    while the 18-25 stagnates 20 years later and declines rapidly 25 years after. these are great correlations.
    Correlations of what? Arbitrary ages where criminals convert to Christianity and stop being mean people? Violent crime, if you had cared to check the history, also provided in a graph in my sources, goes through various periods of stagnation followed by dramatic increase. The period of "crime stagnation" in the 70's-80's was probably caused by the hippie era. The graphs presented show obvious signs of increase before dropping rapidly after the release of Doom and similar games.

    25+ also stagnated at the 27 years later mark. Doom was released in 1993, 20 years after. How do you account for the stagnation before that date in teenage males?
    What? I'm not sure what you're asking. Roe vs. Wade obviously only effected infants significantly after the case in 73. Anyone that was a teenager in 73, or up to 12 years afterward, were part of a generation completely unaffected by the case. The crime stagnation in the 70's is more obviously correlated with the hippie movement.

    Your other links weren't related to abortion... I checked, it was all about video games and violent crime. I offered a different explanation.
    They prove it wrong by showing direct and immediate correlations with game releases! Had you actually read, rather than scanned, any of the sources I presented, you wouldn't still be advocating this flawed argument.

    The correlation exists only in the 90's, and while more and more violent video games are released, we AREN'T seeing a dramatic reduction in violent crime still prevalent and in accordance to this BS theory. Sorry.
    Violent crime is continuing to fall1, in fully predicted by continued and ever popular use of video games (and the aging of the video game generation). According to THIS SOURCE, further decreases can still be be directly correlated to newer violent games; obviously to less effect due to the fact they're already so common.

    Quote Originally Posted by The source
    A friend pushed me in the direction of a couple of interesting statistics. Since Doom was released in 1993, violent crimes in the United States have to 40% of what they used to be. Coincidence? Possibly, yes. However, the year Quake and Duke Nukem 3D were released, violent crimes fell by 4%, and a further 2% when Grand Theft Auto was released.
    Your prediction, given how abortions are a generally static variable, would predict an eventual normalization upon the maturity of those children in 73-75 and beyond that isn't present. Among the ages of 18-24, violent crime is still dropping, once again predicted due to the fact 18-24 year olds are commonly gamers, having been aged 14-17 when Doom was released.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    it's like talking to a damn brick wall...
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Darius, I read the sources, and the vague graph isn't exactly telling. The homicide rates were age specific, below the two graphs you may be talking about. it shows CLEAR stagnation of violent crime in the 14-17 age group when the '75 children are turning 14 in 1989, also the year that the '72 children are turning 17. there would be a drop when the generation turns 17, Darius, not 14. this is true because the previous generation is still included prior to that point, and guess what, in 1992, when the drop starts, is when the '75 children are turning 17, eliminating the entire group prior to that. The two events coincide, but seriously, if we are talking about poorer people being the ones commiting the crimes, how in the HELL are you going to argue that a commodity of the rich is something that will help curve their crime rates... Honestly, Darius, grow a brain and start using it, instead of taking abstract BS and saying it's the only way, which you happen to be doing right now

    Oh, and let's look at abortion rates for the '70s: the abortion rates:
    '73=744,600 accounting for 19.2% of pregnancies
    '74=898,600 accounting for 22.1% of pregnancies
    '75=1,034,200 accounting for 24.8% of pregnancies
    '76=1,179,300 accounting for 27.1% of pregnancies
    '77=1,316,700 accounting for 28.4% of pregnancies

    Where's the static variable? It seems to be increasing to me, is it increasing to you, or static? If it isn't static, you last statement about a static variable is bunk, and the normalization of the crime rate does coincide with a 20 year difference, again, to the stagnation of the abortion rates... Try again.

    I'd wager it'd take until 76 before the abortions really accounted for a large portion of the potential criminals. being over 25% of people that would have been born weren't.

    The real problem is you assume that in the 14-17 age category, that it's the 14 year olds that account for the majority of crimes, when it's more likely the 16 and 17 year olds. I don't quite understand how a video game, inaccessible to the poor, mind you, can reduce crime in the poorer population... Care to comment on that?
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    817
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Darius, I read the sources, and the vague graph isn't exactly telling. The homicide rates were age specific, below the two graphs you may be talking about. it shows CLEAR stagnation of violent crime in the 14-17 age group when the '75 children are turning 14 in 1989, also the year that the '72 children are turning 17. there would be a drop when the generation turns 17, Darius, not 14.
    Oh for the love of Jesus Christ Almighty! What you're noticing in "stagnation" is actually an artifact from cherrypicking the data. One I apologize for not directly pointing out sooner, since I seem to be the only one that cares. A more "zoomed out" view gives us a very clear view that crime was actually increasing during your so-called "stagnation".

    Unfortunately, specific age-evidence for violent crime seems unavailable. The best I could locate were homicide rates, and it's quite clear your theory is debunked, at least in regards to homicides. Chart

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_i...rime_over_time

    The real problem is you assume that in the 14-17 age category, that it's the 14 year olds that account for the majority of crimes, when it's more likely the 16 and 17 year olds. I don't quite understand how a video game, inaccessible to the poor, mind you, can reduce crime in the poorer population... Care to comment on that?
    Prove your claim that games are inaccessible to the poor. Quite the contrary, the cheapness of older gaming systems allows the poor access to practically everything, and plus the poor have friends that are likely not to be poor.

    While you're at it, produce evidence that the violent crime rate in 14 and 15 year olds is so insignificant as to make its presents on a chart undetectable by your theory.

    Regarding abortions, nice cherry picking. It immediately becomes stable, fluctuating within about a hundred, after 1977, and teenagers born at and shortly after '77 (to '79) show no drop in homicide or contribute to a drop in violent crime before 1993.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Darius, tell me, is the crime increasing from 1988 to 1992? or is topped out like I said? and by that chart, the crime is going down prior to Doom's release (Dec 10, 1993). as a matter of fact, that graph proves my point, in 1992 crime begins to decrease steadily in 1992, not 1994. You are consistently posting evidence that supports my theory, minus the articles with conjecture on video games. I did not Cherry pick, I noticed a ceiling in the graph and noticed the time period it happened. Darius, Grow a brain.

    So, how many poor families owned a computer in 1993? about 7%. Not a very high amount, is it? What's your proof that poor kids had friends that were likely not to be poor? Doom released on MS Dos, and computers were a luxury in 1993, not a common occurrence among the poor. It then released on the failed Atari Jaguar in 1994, and the Sega32x in november of 1994, but to say that it was cheap is a stretch, as the Sega32x cost $160 on release, and promptly failed. It ported to Playstation and SNES in mid and late 1995, respectively, after you're so-called "immediate affect", so I find that to be irrelevant. If I missed something, please, tell me. Oh yeah, the failed atari was $250, not an easy price to pay if you were poor, and it released in November of 1993. in 1995 the numbers are better, at 36%, but by no means is 1/3 of poor households a majority, albeit a substantial number. There truly is little correlation to video games and crime, especially now that I'm doing a scant bit of research. Sorry Darius, my point is supported over yours. Old game systems, were NOT, relatively speaking, cheap. Sorry.

    I can't find more specific statistics on the age of violent criminals, only the age of the victims. If you can find one, by all means, present it.

    Edit:
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    Regarding abortions, nice cherry picking. It immediately becomes stable, fluctuating within about a hundred, after 1977, and teenagers born at and shortly after '77 (to '79) show no drop in homicide or contribute to a drop in violent crime before 1993.
    you seriously just don't get it... 1977 to 1979 means they would be... 14 to 16 in 93... reaching criminal peaks in '97-'99 at the age of 20... wow... nice... I cut off after 5 years just to prove a point, but you're right, it stabilizes between '79 and '80... but, either way, my point is still valid, and supported. And your point still fails
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    it's like talking to a damn brick wall...
    It is interesting that some people have an immense capcity for being wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    Unsatisfaction is to blame. People seek entertainment, why? Because they are not content. People commit crimes, why? To get something they can't get legally: possessions, power, pleasure, respect.

    Why are people unsatisfied? Where did our standards come from, than convinced us that we should be satisfied?

    Sorry if this is off topic, I didn't read the first page.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    I suppose Darius doesn't have an adequate response anymore?
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    I read the OP, didn't find ensuing arguments very topical.

    I think the challenge with emotion here, is, we're faced with an ever narrowing field in which to constructively exercise it. We're built for "man vs. nature" yet now "nature" AKA environment is our own species. We all need to find and solve problems. We must look hard for problems that are not ourselves.

    It's much easier when one lives in the country. In fact it's so easy, one may do good without much self awareness. Just attend to whatever problem meets the eye. Do what you feel like.

    People who are too removed from constructive challenges, tend to turn on each other.

    A paradox of our nature is that we work to remove all challenges from our view. And then what?
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    Breed. But the most successful won't wait.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Breeding doesn't end it! We have offspring, then proceed to fix them that aren't broken. Because they're so convenient. So the next generation learns to treat people like environment (sociopathy). And so on.

    What we need is compelling challenges beyond each other to constructively channel our problem-nagging urges into. Like, a huge meteor or something.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    I think we have all the challenges we need

    Lots of people avoid challenges, but I can't say that this needs to change.

    Disasters don't unite people, they serve as an outlet for already latent unity.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    I'm not sure you understand the paradox. Human minds are like beavers' teeth: they need to gnaw on things. They need to feel afraid, and angry and so forth. If we don't accept these needs and direct them constructively, we tend to exercise them thoughtlessly on the most convenient objects: each other. This becomes a dangerous paradox because each challenge resolved is one less alternative to finding fault in our fellows.

    Maybe some can sink their energies into cleaning the aquarium or shovelling snow. I can't. Deprive me of hard problems, I'll become an asshole.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    30
    Jesus couldn't you both be right?! It's pretty ridicules to think that neither had an effect. When all the evidence points to an effect from both. Personally i think legalized abortion had a greater effect. But there's no denying that video games have some effect on crime as well.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Midgetmaid
    Jesus couldn't you both be right?! It's pretty ridicules to think that neither had an effect. When all the evidence points to an effect from both. Personally i think legalized abortion had a greater effect. But there's no denying that video games have some effect on crime as well.
    You should learn the difference between correlation and cause.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Masters Degree Twit of wit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by Incoming Dessert
    People in shops are happier (and therefore likely to buy more) to be served by an apparently happy person. It's a business technique. It has a place.
    Oh really? It's CREEPY. Google "uncanny valley". Almost noone can fake being happy. Sad person with a happy smile is unnatural and weird.
    I know they are ordered to do that, but I just can't stop the feeling that someone is going to cheat me or something worse. It's very incomfortable to shop in such places.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Maybe some can sink their energies into cleaning the aquarium or shovelling snow. I can't. Deprive me of hard problems, I'll become an asshole.
    If cleaning the aquarium and shoveling snow are both so easy, why are some aquariums and the fish they contain so neglected, and cities spend a great deal of money on plowing?

    Clearly you don't mean that physical activity is easy, because there are some things that even the strongest people have a hard time lifting.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Masters Degree Twit of wit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Human minds are like beavers' teeth: they need to gnaw on things. They need to feel afraid, and angry and so forth.
    What are you talking about??
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    As I said:
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    ...If we don't accept these needs and direct them constructively, we tend to exercise them thoughtlessly on the most convenient objects: each other.
    Now see what's going on here? It is easy to sit in front of a computer, picking for a "problem" in Pong's posts. Of all problems one could focus upon, why?
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Masters Degree Twit of wit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    553
    I was serious with my question. What do you mean by the "need to feel afraid and angry and so forth"?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Twit of wit
    I was serious with my question. What do you mean by the "need to feel afraid and angry and so forth"?
    Emotional homeostasis.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Pong - I must concede that your point is unclear to me, but are you suggesting something like... humans have energy in their brains, and that energy requires an outlet... And that the primary outlet is to explore new ideas (to "gnaw" on things), and to feel angry and afraid... and that since we are social creatures, that anger and fear is most commonly expressed toward other humans?

    I'm just guessing here... You're being rather cryptic, and if I've misspoken above perhaps you'll be good enough to clarify?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    Homeostasis? How does fear help us maintain a state of emotional balance?

    What is emotional balance?

    I think anger and fear are common because most of us are lilkely all from lower class sub cultures, assuming based on our extensive free time and lack of busy social and work lives. Anger and fear are more common, I think, in the lower classes, because they are desensitizing. The more anger we feal, the less pain we feal, and that is good for laborers who stress their bodies; the more fear we have the more likely we are to find comfort in romantic concepts like family, friends, community and unity, which inevitably causes more babies to be born with either an innate sense for these concepts, or are likely taught to emulate them as they grow.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Sorry, yeah I'm not articulating well... which is funny 'cause I'm trying to describe wisdom I personally live by. It's a gut-wisdom, like the knowledge that I may not want a spicy vindaloo today, but I will crave it inevitably. Have you ever bought an item at the grocery knowing you would want it later? That's wisdom of appetites. I'm saying one may be just as wise to emotions.

    I believe we're all familiar with the old concept of innate drives. These are goal-oriented, empirically qualifiable behaviours. The mouse drinks because it's driven by thirst, nurses its young because it has "maternal drive" etc. You can arrange an hierarchy of drives, supposedly optimized for survival and reproduction.

    I don't think drives really nail why people feel and do as we do. Why on Earth would anybody enjoy a Hitchcock film? Or go stressfully exploring an exotic country? Or become addicted to reading all the bad news of the world, everyday? And what's up with depressing country music?

    I think that "needs" explains it better. One may still derive goal-oriented drives from needs. Additionally, one may say one has an innate need to just exercise emotional/hormonal/state potentials regardless of environmental cues or consequences. The need to sleep would fit this category. Some people apparently need to produce adrenaline and flush it. It's like we have these glands, like cars in storage, that need their engines run from time to time. Sometimes people just need to jerk off.



    In the context of emotional homeostasis, I'm suggesting we are calibrated to a state between multiple contradictory potentials. These potentials are both good and bad. For example we may feel confident or we may feel timid. We may feel comfortable or we may feel pain. We may not like it, but, we are built to feel a wide range of intensities, and to perform well under stress.

    Besides emotional, our cognitions are "calibrated" by the condition that we must see both good and bad. If there's just the tiniest speck of bad in something it looms large in our sight. We are problem solvers. Having solved one problem, we must go looking for another.



    The paradox is that although we are "designed for" living a balanced, productive life including solutions & pleasures and problems & discomforts, our nature is to eliminate the negative AKA stressors. And we win too easily. Actually we've practically won, regarding natural environmental challenges. We put ourselves out of balance. Objectively, most people live in relatively luxurious environment that is wholly human. That's what we want. Our innate needs though didn't vanish with all our accomplishments. So now we live in this terribly unsuitable environment: We are the jungle! I try to keep this in mind, lest I go thoughtlessly exercising my more negative capacities on other human beings. Basically, I accept that I will "look for trouble" and feel all sorts of nastiness despite my comfortable existence, and I strive to feed these needs constructively and not just as most convenient. Consciously not unconsciously.

    Convenient & unconscious, like the thread starter showed us. To Darius, we are the beasts of the jungle he unapologetically directs his innate passions against. I would say he has no handle on his emotions. He seems to think the only other option is suppression. It's kinda like he's in a grocery store and sees his options as either gobble like an undisciplined toddler, or starve.


    Well that grew longer than I'd hoped. And it's no more inarticulate.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    deleted as it was dumb
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •