Why has violence declined? I think most people would be astonished to hear that.
Steven Pinker: First of all, I have to convince people that there’s a fact that needs to be explained—namely, that violence has declined. And it has, as I demonstrate with 100 graphs and data sets. The reasons, I think, are multiple. One of them is the spread of government, the outsourcing of revenge to a more or less disinterested third party. That tends to ramp down your rates of vendetta and blood feud for all the reasons that we’re familiar with from The Sopranos and The Godfather. If you’ve got a disinterested third party, they’re more likely to nip that cycle in the bud. Not necessarily because they have any benevolent interest in the welfare of their subject peoples, especially in the early governments. Their motive was closer to the motive of a farmer who doesn’t want his livestock killing each other. Namely, it’s a deadweight loss to him.
But even without this benevolent interest, you find that with the first states in the transition from hunting and gathering to settled ways of life, violence goes down, and in the consolidation of kingdoms during the transition from medieval times to modernity, rates of homicide go way down.
The Decline of Violence
Moderator: Global Moderator
Re: The Decline of Violence
Getting some people over here to accept historical fact is like trying to convince a creationist about the process of evolution.
All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone. - Blaise Pascal
Re: The Decline of Violence
Let’s go through some of the reasons and processes by which the world became less violent. It began with what you call the pacification process, which involved the creation of states.
Pinker: The first states seemed to have in their wake a massive reduction of death in tribal raiding and feuding, basically because it’s a nuisance to the overlords. So you have things like the Pax Romana, the Pax Islamica, the Pax Sinica, in China, where the emperors would much rather have the peasants alive to stock their tax rolls and armies, and be slaves or serfs. So they had a selfish interest in preventing too much internecine feuding among their subject peoples and basically kept them from each other’s throats. Not that it was a life that we would consider particularly pleasant. You’re substituting a lot of violence among tribes and villages and clans for a lesser amount—but still a brutal form of violence—from the state against its citizens.
The next transition, after you have the government preventing people from committing violence against each other, you now have the problem of preventing the government from committing violence against its own peoples. And that was, basically, the advent of democracy and the various reforms of the Enlightenment.
All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone. - Blaise Pascal
Re: The Decline of Violence
[quote="doodle"]
Getting some people over here to accept historical fact is like trying to convince a creationist about the process of evolution.
[quote]
Given the massive-scale wars of the 20th century and this one not looking so good at the beginning you'll have to count me as a declining violence skeptic.
Getting some people over here to accept historical fact is like trying to convince a creationist about the process of evolution.
[quote]
Given the massive-scale wars of the 20th century and this one not looking so good at the beginning you'll have to count me as a declining violence skeptic.
Re: The Decline of Violence
Maybe this will help with your skepticism?
I was at a conference a while back where I outlined your thesis briefly to a panel of fairly distinguished political scientists and economists. They rejected it out of hand, retorting, “The 20th century was horrible. Millions died.”? Why is it that most people tend to believe violence is increasing?
Pinker: Well, millions died in centuries before the 20th. People confuse a data point with the trend. They remember the horrific episodes of violence in the 20th century, but one occurrence is not a trend. And despite universal predictions that World War I to World War II was just the beginning of a sequence where World War III would be even worse, World War III didn’t happen. And in fact, from the spike of the Second World War, there’s been a historically unusual period of peace among developed countries.
But with regard to violence, government has been a big problem. It was the solution to tribal warfare, but governments have developed their own more efficient ways of killing people.
Pinker: Yes. Although probably in fewer numbers, because in no period of history would you have, say, 25 percent of the population killed by their government, which you could easily have in tribal warfare in hunter-horticulturists.
Last edited by doodle on Wed Nov 20, 2013 7:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone. - Blaise Pascal
Re: The Decline of Violence
If you resist a law or government what happens to you?
I doubt many murders take place in maximum security prisons....does that mean it's not a violent place?
People who advocate government solutions to violence just advocate violence that is so overwhelming no one resists it.
It's like saying when a guy goes into a bar and punches someone and takes his wallet that's violence and wrong but if goes in with a machine gun and everyone just hands over their wallet it's not violence.
I am not that smart but if I debated Plinker on this issue I would destroy him in 3 minutes...and that's if he got a 2 minute opening statement. Well he's from Harvard what would you expect, look at the humans they've pumped out lately (Bush, Obama)
I doubt many murders take place in maximum security prisons....does that mean it's not a violent place?
People who advocate government solutions to violence just advocate violence that is so overwhelming no one resists it.
It's like saying when a guy goes into a bar and punches someone and takes his wallet that's violence and wrong but if goes in with a machine gun and everyone just hands over their wallet it's not violence.
I am not that smart but if I debated Plinker on this issue I would destroy him in 3 minutes...and that's if he got a 2 minute opening statement. Well he's from Harvard what would you expect, look at the humans they've pumped out lately (Bush, Obama)
- Pointedstick
- Executive Member
- Posts: 8866
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
- Contact:
Re: The Decline of Violence
Errrrrrr...But with regard to violence, government has been a big problem. It was the solution to tribal warfare, but governments have developed their own more efficient ways of killing people.
Pinker: Yes. Although probably in fewer numbers, because in no period of history would you have, say, 25 percent of the population killed by their government, which you could easily have in tribal warfare in hunter-horticulturists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Roug ... _of_deaths
Over the course of four years, estimates of the number of deaths range from 1.3 to 3 million people systematically killed, out of the society's population of 8.4 million.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
Re: The Decline of Violence
Have you read his book?Kshartle wrote: I am not that smart but if I debated Plinker on this issue I would destroy him in 3 minutes...and that's if he got a 2 minute opening statement. Well he's from Harvard what would you expect, look at the humans they've pumped out lately (Bush, Obama)
Pinker is not saying that violence no longer exists. He is saying there is a lot less of it than there used to be. Which seems pretty clearly to be a true fact.
- Mountaineer
- Executive Member
- Posts: 4960
- Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am
Re: The Decline of Violence
I may be wrong, but the OP post article seems to be more hypothesis than fact. Granted, it is "presented" as fact with great charts and such. It just is hard for me to fall into the current mantra of swallowing hook, line, and sinker what so many call facts. I don't want to start a flame war, but to me evolution is often presented as "fact" when in fact, it cannot be proven or disproven. It is just a widely accepted hypothesis. Ditto "global warming" or "man caused climate change" or "gun control reduces violence".
... Mountaineer
... Mountaineer
DNA has its own language (code), and language requires intelligence. There is no known mechanism by which matter can give birth to information, let alone language. It is unreasonable to believe the world could have happened by chance.
Re: The Decline of Violence
I wouldn't try to discuss empirical facts with Kshartle....he only seems to be interested in high flying theories. Reality doesn't interest him.KevinW wrote:Have you read his book?Kshartle wrote: I am not that smart but if I debated Plinker on this issue I would destroy him in 3 minutes...and that's if he got a 2 minute opening statement. Well he's from Harvard what would you expect, look at the humans they've pumped out lately (Bush, Obama)
Pinker is not saying that violence no longer exists. He is saying there is a lot less of it than there used to be. Which seems pretty clearly to be a true fact.
All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone. - Blaise Pascal
Re: The Decline of Violence
The fact that you need a different flu shot every season isn't evidence of evolution? Let's not get derailed though...Mountaineer wrote: I may be wrong, but the OP post article seems to be more hypothesis than fact. Granted, it is "presented" as fact with great charts and such. It just is hard for me to fall into the current mantra of swallowing hook, line, and sinker what so many call facts. I don't want to start a flame war, but to me evolution is often presented as "fact" when in fact, it cannot be proven or disproven. It is just a widely accepted hypothesis. Ditto "global warming" or "man caused climate change" or "gun control reduces violence".
... Mountaineer
Yes, you pick one extreme example and try to extrapolate this across all governments. I think this is a unique situation and the Khmer Rouge were more a band of thugs and mercenaries than a legitimately elected democratic government. People slaughter people...period...the fact is that they do it a lot less when there is a centralized power structure. In addition, Pinker discusses the Enlightenment and how its ideas shaped the relationship between government and citizen so that atrocities like this could be limited.Pointedstick wrote:Errrrrrr...But with regard to violence, government has been a big problem. It was the solution to tribal warfare, but governments have developed their own more efficient ways of killing people.
Pinker: Yes. Although probably in fewer numbers, because in no period of history would you have, say, 25 percent of the population killed by their government, which you could easily have in tribal warfare in hunter-horticulturists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Roug ... _of_deaths
Over the course of four years, estimates of the number of deaths range from 1.3 to 3 million people systematically killed, out of the society's population of 8.4 million.
All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone. - Blaise Pascal
Re: The Decline of Violence
I dated a women who lived in Brooklyn, NY. The area was run by the Mafia. She was perfectly safe walking home at night.
Last edited by Benko on Wed Nov 20, 2013 9:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
It was good being the party of Robin Hood. Until they morphed into the Sheriff of Nottingham
- Mountaineer
- Executive Member
- Posts: 4960
- Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am
Re: The Decline of Violence
Doodle said:
The fact that you need a different flu shot every season isn't evidence of evolution? Let's not get derailed though...
I believe that "fact" you quoted refers to micro-evolution which is indeed provable. If micro-evloution is all you are discussing with your premise, then I am on board with you. If your original statement dealt with macro-evolution, as my reply was intended to be about (but was not clear - my error), then I stand my my statement that macro-evolution is a hypothesis, not fact. Any comments about that, or violence, or global warming, etc. re. fact vs. hypothesis?
The fact that you need a different flu shot every season isn't evidence of evolution? Let's not get derailed though...
I believe that "fact" you quoted refers to micro-evolution which is indeed provable. If micro-evloution is all you are discussing with your premise, then I am on board with you. If your original statement dealt with macro-evolution, as my reply was intended to be about (but was not clear - my error), then I stand my my statement that macro-evolution is a hypothesis, not fact. Any comments about that, or violence, or global warming, etc. re. fact vs. hypothesis?
DNA has its own language (code), and language requires intelligence. There is no known mechanism by which matter can give birth to information, let alone language. It is unreasonable to believe the world could have happened by chance.
Re: The Decline of Violence
No it's not. He just thinks when people sumbit to violent threats it's not violence.KevinW wrote:Have you read his book?Kshartle wrote: I am not that smart but if I debated Plinker on this issue I would destroy him in 3 minutes...and that's if he got a 2 minute opening statement. Well he's from Harvard what would you expect, look at the humans they've pumped out lately (Bush, Obama)
Pinker is not saying that violence no longer exists. He is saying there is a lot less of it than there used to be. Which seems pretty clearly to be a true fact.
If I asked him if he thought the North Korean government had curbed violence in North Korea or did slave owners solve the problem of violence on the plantations......what do you think his answer would be?
What would be your answer?
I read the article with his interview. His answers show his complete lack of understanding of reality. Either that or he's a liar who supports violence and wants to train the sheep to accept it.
Re: The Decline of Violence
In science, a "fact" is an empirical (observable) phenomenon that is undeniably true. A "hypothesis" is a tentative explanation for why facts are true, that has not been thoroughly established. A "theory" is a hypothesis that has been vetted by extensive testing and has failed to be disproved. Nothing is ever "proved" positively in science but hypotheses may be disproved. Scientists are closest to certain about theories, but *nothing* is ever certain since all observations are limited by human and technological limitations.Mountaineer wrote: I may be wrong, but the OP post article seems to be more hypothesis than fact. Granted, it is "presented" as fact with great charts and such. It just is hard for me to fall into the current mantra of swallowing hook, line, and sinker what so many call facts. I don't want to start a flame war, but to me evolution is often presented as "fact" when in fact, it cannot be proven or disproven. It is just a widely accepted hypothesis. Ditto "global warming" or "man caused climate change" or "gun control reduces violence".
... Mountaineer
In your examples,
- murder rates are facts
- Pinker has put forward a hypothesis that violence is less common now than it used to be, and I think if you looked at his factual evidence you would agree is a valid theory
- he has also put forward explanations for the decline in violence which I would presently rate as a promising hypothesis
- evolution is a validated theory
- climate change is a validated theory
- other validated theories: the germ theory that explains how pasteurization and antibiotics work, the gas law that explains why internal combustion engines don't explode every time they run, and Bernoulli's principle which explains why sails and airplane wings work
Re: The Decline of Violence
I wouldn't try to discuss ideas and concepts with you....you only seem interested in charts and graphs or numbers. Logic and reason doesn't interest you.doodle wrote:I wouldn't try to discuss empirical facts with Kshartle....he only seems to be interested in high flying theories. Reality doesn't interest him.KevinW wrote:Have you read his book?Kshartle wrote: I am not that smart but if I debated Plinker on this issue I would destroy him in 3 minutes...and that's if he got a 2 minute opening statement. Well he's from Harvard what would you expect, look at the humans they've pumped out lately (Bush, Obama)
Pinker is not saying that violence no longer exists. He is saying there is a lot less of it than there used to be. Which seems pretty clearly to be a true fact.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.....
Re: The Decline of Violence
"Pinker identifies a series of institutional changes that have led to decreasing levels of life-threatening violence."Kshartle wrote:No it's not. He just thinks when people sumbit to violent threats it's not violence.KevinW wrote:Have you read his book?Kshartle wrote: I am not that smart but if I debated Plinker on this issue I would destroy him in 3 minutes...and that's if he got a 2 minute opening statement. Well he's from Harvard what would you expect, look at the humans they've pumped out lately (Bush, Obama)
Pinker is not saying that violence no longer exists. He is saying there is a lot less of it than there used to be. Which seems pretty clearly to be a true fact.
If I asked him if he thought the North Korean government had curbed violence in North Korea or did slave owners solve the problem of violence on the plantations......what do you think his answer would be?
What would be your answer?
I read the article with his interview. His answers show his complete lack of understanding of reality. Either that or he's a liar who supports violence and wants to train the sheep to accept it.
Pinker is using a specific definition of "violence" in this work. It is common in scholarly work to define terms precisely to as avoid these kind of arguments over what "is" is.
Re: The Decline of Violence
If someone points a gun at you and threatens to shoot you if you don't obey.....but you do comply and he doesn't shoot you....was your life threatened?KevinW wrote:"Pinker identifies a series of institutional changes that have led to decreasing levels of life-threatening violence."Kshartle wrote:No it's not. He just thinks when people sumbit to violent threats it's not violence.KevinW wrote: Have you read his book?
Pinker is not saying that violence no longer exists. He is saying there is a lot less of it than there used to be. Which seems pretty clearly to be a true fact.
If I asked him if he thought the North Korean government had curbed violence in North Korea or did slave owners solve the problem of violence on the plantations......what do you think his answer would be?
What would be your answer?
I read the article with his interview. His answers show his complete lack of understanding of reality. Either that or he's a liar who supports violence and wants to train the sheep to accept it.
Pinker is using a specific definition of "violence" in this work. It is common in scholarly work to define terms precisely to as avoid these kind of arguments over what "is" is.
If you completely refuse to obey laws and resist all efforts to make you comply, what happens to you?
Everyone's life is threatened by the government if they don't obey. The threat is just so overwhemingly powerful and impossible to resist only the crazy and irrational choose to. Government hasn't solved the problem of life-threatening violence by threating everyone's life at all times if they don't obey. Believing that means you either don't understand or are insane. Refusing to accpet it after it's pointed out is just an emotional defense mechanism.
Does that make sense Kevin?
Sorry if I derailed you guys.
Last edited by Kshartle on Wed Nov 20, 2013 9:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Mountaineer
- Executive Member
- Posts: 4960
- Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am
Re: The Decline of Violence
Simonjester wrote: these are the ten steps needed to create a research design
Hypothesis: create a hypothesis -
how the hypothesis gets worded makes a difference
Terms. define terms- how is he defining the word violence? this seems to be kshartles question define it one way get one answer define it another get a different result
Purpose. state purpose of research - is he really trying to prove the point (more government tyranny = less violence ) or make that argument as it is being used here?
Literature: list relevant literature -
Assumptions: state the assumptions being made- i would be curious what his are .
Sample. state what type of sample being used and make sure it is representative
Limitations. list limitations
Method. describe method
Variables. list variables
Procedures. list procedures
i haven't seen this guys research, or the research design he used, but somewhere between a lot and most research fails to do at least one of the above steps properly and quite a few fail at many of the steps.
The steps of the scientific method are to:
* Ask a Question
* Do Background Research
* Construct a Hypothesis
* Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
* Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
* Communicate Your Results
I have a hard time understanding how one can do a "valid" experiment (definition of valid and experiment I suppose are subject to intrepretation - thus the problem) to test the various hypotheses I mentioned - violence, evolution, global warming, gun control, etc. Kind of hard to prove why the dinos went extinct, or the universe came into existence, or two fish developed lungs concurently so they could breed mammals, or why areas with tighter gun control have more crime.
I agree the steps Simon put forth about research design are frequently missed by many, if not most.
More info on Scientific Method: http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_l ... ndixe.html
In my humble opinion, the scientific method is often misused to deal with some social phenomena or other areas outside the boundries of what can be observed and an experiment devised to validate conclusions. I believe there are three ways humans receive information. Cognitive, experiential and revelation. The scientific method deals mainly with the first.
Last edited by Mountaineer on Wed Nov 20, 2013 10:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
DNA has its own language (code), and language requires intelligence. There is no known mechanism by which matter can give birth to information, let alone language. It is unreasonable to believe the world could have happened by chance.
Re: The Decline of Violence
There is plenty of evidence for micro-evolution. Darwinian evolution "theory", on the other hand, is zombie science.KevinW wrote: - evolution is a validated theory
- climate change is a validated theory
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html
http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestio ... nEvolution
Of course the climate is always changing (duh), but the "consensus" global warming alarmism is all about politics and power, not science.
http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/1226523 ... mate-scare
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/04/r ... -17-years/
Re: The Decline of Violence
Evolution? But please....lets not get derailed.
All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone. - Blaise Pascal
Re: The Decline of Violence
Nice picture, but it's a strong case for reuse of design, not for Darwinian evolution, which can't explain software in the cell and overwhelming evidence of design (which we must always remind ourselves is only "apparent" even though it's light years beyond anything humans can dream of engineering). Design and information invariably originate from a mind, not a mindless process.
Re: The Decline of Violence
yes, nature is reason....we evolved from the universal "mind" so to speak.....Unless you think there is a bearded guy in the sky working on blueprints.kka wrote: Nice picture, but it's a strong case for reuse of design, not for Darwinian evolution, which can't explain software in the cell and overwhelming evidence of design (which we must always remind ourselves is only "apparent" even though it's light years beyond anything humans can dream of engineering). Design and information invariably originate from a mind, not a mindless process.
All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone. - Blaise Pascal
Re: The Decline of Violence
Has violence gone down because of governments of because people are getting smarter and society has been producing more and more goodies. Maybe people are just coming to their senses and realise that working together creates a better living for everybody instead of trying to force your way through live?
I do not doubt that we are progressing, but that is not because of governments. There have always been governments. Some small some big, but I do not know of a time where there was no government. In that sense I find his claim to be bogus.
In fact the argument he gives is downright funny. As NAP-er you always get the argument that there is no example in history where a true anarchistic society has existed. Hence it cannot be (so goes the argument). But now we are to believe that in the past there was only anarchy?
I do not doubt that we are progressing, but that is not because of governments. There have always been governments. Some small some big, but I do not know of a time where there was no government. In that sense I find his claim to be bogus.
In fact the argument he gives is downright funny. As NAP-er you always get the argument that there is no example in history where a true anarchistic society has existed. Hence it cannot be (so goes the argument). But now we are to believe that in the past there was only anarchy?
Re: The Decline of Violence
These are excellent points Rien. I would go one further though and say that for all history governments have been violent, since that is truly all a government is (a group of people who claim the sole right and responsibility to commit violence over a certain group of people in a certain geographic area). Modern technology and organizational techniques (and propaganda) has enabled governments to be so amaizingly proficient at committing violence that almost no one resists it anymore. the entire society is organized and ordered under the constant threat of unopposable violence.Rien wrote: Has violence gone down because of governments of because people are getting smarter and society has been producing more and more goodies. Maybe people are just coming to their senses and realise that working together creates a better living for everybody instead of trying to force your way through live?
I do not doubt that we are progressing, but that is not because of governments. There have always been governments. Some small some big, but I do not know of a time where there was no government. In that sense I find his claim to be bogus.
In fact the argument he gives is downright funny. As NAP-er you always get the argument that there is no example in history where a true anarchistic society has existed. Hence it cannot be (so goes the argument). But now we are to believe that in the past there was only anarchy?
Almost everyone in society (and many in this forum) accept it as the "way things are" and pretend that "people must really like it since they don't physically oppose it".
The thief is better off not shooting you if he doesn't have to in order to get your money. The cattle farmer is better off not beating the cows and having dogs bite them if they will just go quietly into the pens.
Governments have improved aggresive violence to such a high degree that if you truly want to express your violent tendancies there is no better place than in the government. Armies, police, you name it.....liscense to kill. So few even oppose it they can do the most insane things.....and it just keeps getting more violent and worse.
Re: The Decline of Violence
If you study history, you will see that as humans transitioned from hunter gathering to settled agricultural societies there were no centralized governments....I do not doubt that we are progressing, but that is not because of governments. There have always been governments. Some small some big, but I do not know of a time where there was no government. In that sense I find his claim to be bogus.
First, are you disputing the anthropological and archeological studies that indicate that early societies had murder rates that compare to Pointedstick's Khmer Rouge example? If you are, then we have a disagreement about the facts...which makes any future discussion difficult.
All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone. - Blaise Pascal