Gyroscopic Investing

Posted: **Tue Apr 16, 2013 12:35 am**

After every mass shooting, the gun debate splits into two camps: One side says it easily could have been avoided if these maniacs weren't allowed to have guns; the other says it easily could have been avoided if each innocent victim had only gone through their daily lives in cover formation, armed like the space marines entering the giant murder womb in Aliens.

And that's pretty much the entire gun control debate, as far as the mainstream media are willing to cover. And that is a shame, because it leaves out all of the most interesting parts. Trust us, the longer you look into this, the weirder it gets. For instance ...

http://www.cracked.com/article_20396_5- ... -guns.html

Posted: **Tue Apr 16, 2013 9:07 am**

Violence begets violence. Why do we act so shocked as a society when the violent seeds that we sow sprout into events like what happened yesterday? From our gargantuan military and condoning of torture, to bloodbath movies and video games, to our brutish in your face alpha male sports, our brains are nourished with violence from the day we are born. After the horrible movie theater massacre, one of my first thoughts was how ironic it was that people who got such entertainment value out of the violence on the silverscreen were so shocked and dismayed by its manifestation in real life.

Posted: **Tue Apr 16, 2013 9:09 am**

#5 is only sort of true… some gun ads are ridiculous, but most are pretty tame. As usual, Cracked is cherry-picking. Paging through your average gun rag shows a lot of hunting-themed ads with a good assortment of self-defense-related ones depicting both men and women protecting themselves, and men protecting women.

#4 is absolutely true. Mass shooters are all over the map in terms of their motivations and psychological profiles. Just about the only thing that's even remotely consistent is their age and gender: young males.

#3 is also true. Really tragic. There's a lot of undiagnosed depression and mental illness in this country, it seems.

#2 is somewhat debateable, as again they're using cherry-picked examples. But it is true that there are a lot of people who own 10 guns and shoot one or two maybe a few times a year. Not everyone fits that mold, but a lot do.

#1 is true. The actual FBI-gathered statistics often get lost in the debate. Crime, violence, and gun-related violence are all dropping. Gun accidents are dramatically dropping. All this while the number of guns in circulation has been consistently rising.

Posted: **Tue Apr 16, 2013 9:09 am**

MachineGhost wrote: After every mass shooting, the gun debate splits into two camps: One side says it easily could have been avoided if these maniacs weren't allowed to have guns; the other says it easily could have been avoided if each innocent victim had only gone through their daily lives in cover formation, armed like the space marines entering the giant murder womb in Aliens.

And that is plenty to tell me their perspective.

But I clicked on the link and read the stupid article anyway.

Yup, another supposed scholar who thinks he has the whole world figured out and it would be all better if the rest of us were just as smart.

Posted: **Tue Apr 16, 2013 11:32 am**

We are a violent people and society (notwithstanding our carefully cultivated rationalizations and justifications for our preoccupation with violence). It should come as no shock that this dominance of the violent gene in our cultural DNA would occasionally manifest in ugly incidents.

The U.S.'s #1 export to the rest of the world is violence and the infrastructure to deliver violence.

Look at every bit of violence in other countries that we lament and we will find in our own history dramatically larger expressions of the same type of gratuitous violence.

Posted: **Tue Apr 16, 2013 11:47 am**

MediumTex wrote: We are a violent people and society (notwithstanding our carefully cultivated rationalizations and justifications for our preoccupation with violence). It should come as no shock that this dominance of the violent gene in our cultural DNA would occasionally manifest in ugly incidents.

The U.S.'s #1 export to the rest of the world is violence and the infrastructure to deliver violence.

Look at every bit of violence in other countries that we lament and we will find in our own history dramatically larger expressions of the same type of gratuitous violence.

If we could figure out a way to turn off the violent gene which has ceased to serve a purpose in our modern world, would it be a good idea to do so? Why should human society and its peaceful development and progress be hamstrung by our imperfect evolutionary past? Arguments pro and con?

Posted: **Tue Apr 16, 2013 12:13 pm**

doodle wrote: If we could figure out a way to turn off the violent gene which has ceased to serve a purpose in our modern world, would it be a good idea to do so? Why should human society and its peaceful development and progress be hamstrung by our imperfect evolutionary past? Arguments pro and con?

Pros:
- Violence has primary negative effects (injuries, property damage, etc).

Cons:
- Violence has positive secondary effects, such as energy, drive, initiative, and competitiveness, which all remain useful in the modern world. Shutting it off entirely would suppress the beneficial secondary effects as well as the harmful primary effects.
- Violence's harmful primary effects remain useful when used in defense against those who are themselves violent and wish to destroy innocents. Nonviolence in the face of violence only works on a collective level and only in certain circumstances. For example, if you enemy wants to destroy you entirely for ideological reasons, attempting to shock him with the moral weight of the outrage he is committing will not be successful because he already knows it.
- Tinkering scientifically with any genetics is hard, as Monsanto demonstrates. We're not anywhere near close to being able to understand the effects of our genetic tampering.
- Tinkering with human genetics in the proposed method is not currently possible and remains in the realm of fantasy.
- Tinkering with human genetics introduces many ethical dilemmas. Should it be limited to those who can afford it? Who bears the brunt of the necessary experimental testing? Do we really want to create genetically altered humans? What would be the reactions of the normal humans?

My conclusion: the cons outweigh the pros, even if it were possible, which it's not.

Posted: **Tue Apr 16, 2013 12:31 pm**

Pointedstick wrote:
doodle wrote: If we could figure out a way to turn off the violent gene which has ceased to serve a purpose in our modern world, would it be a good idea to do so? Why should human society and its peaceful development and progress be hamstrung by our imperfect evolutionary past? Arguments pro and con?
Pros:
- Violence has primary negative effects (injuries, property damage, etc).

Cons:
- Violence has positive secondary effects, such as energy, drive, initiative, and competitiveness, which all remain useful in the modern world. Shutting it off entirely would suppress the beneficial secondary effects as well as the harmful primary effects.

Are you sure that violence is at the root of energy, drive, and initiative? What about innate curiosity, love, and passion? I think people overestimate the role of violent ego driven competition as a positive force. In my personal experience, cooperation and love have been a much stronger motivating factor.

Besides, when violence is at the root of someone's drive and initiative...is what they are creating going to something positive for others?

- Violence's harmful primary effects remain useful when used in defense against those who are themselves violent and wish to destroy innocents. Nonviolence in the face of violence only works on a collective level and only in certain circumstances. For example, if you enemy wants to destroy you entirely for ideological reasons, attempting to shock him with the moral weight of the outrage he is committing will not be successful because he already knows it.

Yes, but you can stop a violent act without harboring ill will or violent feelings towards the perpetrator. For example, if a dog bit me and I had to wring its neck to get him to release his bite, my act (though it involved physical force) would not necessarily be termed "violent".

- Tinkering scientifically with any genetics is hard, as Monsanto demonstrates. We're not anywhere near close to being able to understand the effects of our genetic tampering.
- Tinkering with human genetics in the proposed method is not currently possible and remains in the realm of fantasy.

Right, but imagining it is possible...(that day is coming)...it has been extremely beneficial in other areas of life from tackling diseases to improving crop yields. The next time you eat a grape without seeds you can thank genetic tinkering.

- Tinkering with human genetics introduces many ethical dilemmas. Should it be limited to those who can afford it? Who bears the brunt of the necessary experimental testing? Do we really want to create genetically altered humans? What would be the reactions of the normal humans?

My conclusion: the cons outweigh the pros, even if it were possible, which it's not.

I don't know. Why not start with a small group of willing participants and monitor it for a while? I mean, if we are the true masters of our destiny, shouldn't humans strive to not only understand and control the spaces outside themselves, but also the spaces inside ourselves as well? Why should genetic vestiges of our lizard ancestors control a species that now has its finger on an arsenal of nuclear weapons capable of annihilating the world? I think that our inner development has not kept pace with our outer development and that leaves us in a very precarious situation.

Posted: **Tue Apr 16, 2013 12:35 pm**

Pointedstick wrote:Cons:
- Violence has positive secondary effects, such as energy, drive, initiative, and competitiveness, which all remain useful in the modern world. Shutting it off entirely would suppress the beneficial secondary effects as well as the harmful primary effects.

I think you're drawing a weak link here. Energy, drive, initiative, and competitiveness are independent behaviors in and of themselves. They are not "secondary effects" of violence. Just because someone is motivated doesn't imply that they are also violent, or that they're deriving their motivation from violent tendencies.

I'm no psychologist, but I think a case could be made to argue the exact opposite; that is to say, violence is an inhibitor of motivation and initiative, not a precursor to it. When you think of violent people you don't exactly think to yourself, "Golly, now there's a fellow just bursting with energy, drive, initiative, and a spirit of competitiveness!"

Posted: **Tue Apr 16, 2013 12:52 pm**

Perhaps I'm defining violence clumsily, but I think that violence is one of the outcomes of a mental state that is active. I'm not talking about blustery ego or bellicosity, but a mind that is preoccupied with what is outside rather than what is within.

I don't believe that one can excise the possibility for violence without also excising the root of that which makes us creative, active, and focused on change and improvement. After all, change is as much about creating something new as it is about casting aside something old.

This isn't a scientifically proven fact I'm describing, just a personal belief; it's not really provable one way or another. If in some fantasy world someone offered to remove all the possibilities for violence within me, I wouldn't take it. I feel like I would be losing much, much more than that.

Posted: **Tue Apr 16, 2013 1:10 pm**

Pointedstick wrote:If in some fantasy world someone offered to remove all the possibilities for violence within me, I wouldn't take it. I feel like I would be losing much, much more than that.

My instinct tells me that I'd choose to have all violent tendencies removed from society if I could. I think the gains would be enormous, and frankly I can't even think of any cons (except maybe that boxing and MMA would go away, and certain aspects of other sports might become altered, such as no fights during hockey games, etc.) I wonder if that would mean we would lose our taste for violent video games and movies as well?

Think of all the time, money, and effort we'd save on the court system, prison system, law enforcement, security systems, lost productivity, lost property, pain and suffering, and so on. Then again, life might become like living in some type of Mormon wet dream.

Posted: **Tue Apr 16, 2013 1:25 pm**

I think PS is exactly right. Didn't any of you see the classic Star Trek episode "The Enemy Within", where Kirk is split into "Positive" Kirk and "Negative" Kirk, neither one particularly effective without its other half?

Posted: **Tue Apr 16, 2013 1:55 pm**

Xan wrote: I think PS is exactly right. Didn't any of you see the classic Star Trek episode "The Enemy Within", where Kirk is split into "Positive" Kirk and "Negative" Kirk, neither one particularly effective without its other half?

That is a good point. In a sense you cannot have a self referential definition of something. Positive depends on negative for its existence. You cannot define dark unless you have something light to compare it to.

Anyways, as science is aware, the human brain developed in a series of evolutionary layers. This is why the deepest structures of our brain contain our most basic drives whereas alot of our most conceptual thinking happens in the outer layers. Unfortunately we have the ability to conceive of great things like splitting the atom, yet that technology is then hijacked and put to use to serve our most destructive basic animalistic drives. This creates a dangerous situation for the survival of our species. If technology is essentially neutral, it is how we utilize this technology that determines our success or failure. It is scary to think that so many wild hormones and deep prehistoric structures in our brains are controlling such powerful technology.

Posted: **Tue Apr 16, 2013 2:04 pm**

Xan wrote: I think PS is exactly right. Didn't any of you see the classic Star Trek episode "The Enemy Within", where Kirk is split into "Positive" Kirk and "Negative" Kirk, neither one particularly effective without its other half?

So now we're getting our life philosophy from Star Trek episodes?

Posted: **Tue Apr 16, 2013 2:25 pm**

rocketdog wrote:
Xan wrote: I think PS is exactly right. Didn't any of you see the classic Star Trek episode "The Enemy Within", where Kirk is split into "Positive" Kirk and "Negative" Kirk, neither one particularly effective without its other half?
So now we're getting our life philosophy from Star Trek episodes?

You could do a lot worse.

The original series had outstanding writing and really nicely structured plotlines and characters.

Posted: **Tue Apr 16, 2013 2:39 pm**

MediumTex wrote:
rocketdog wrote:
Xan wrote: I think PS is exactly right. Didn't any of you see the classic Star Trek episode "The Enemy Within", where Kirk is split into "Positive" Kirk and "Negative" Kirk, neither one particularly effective without its other half?
So now we're getting our life philosophy from Star Trek episodes?
You could do a lot worse.

The original series had outstanding writing and really nicely structured plotlines and characters.

I'm not criticizing Star Trek here (Gene Rodenberry was a humanist, which I consider myself to be as well). I'm just not sure I would base my argument on the plotline of a TV show, no matter how good the show might be.

Removing violence from our nature would not render us incapable of progress. The benefits to society would be tremendous if it did not need to constantly deal with the violent members among it.

Posted: **Tue Apr 16, 2013 2:45 pm**

If "if"s and "but"s were candy and nuts, we'd ALL have a merry Christmas!

Posted: **Tue Apr 16, 2013 2:49 pm**

rocketdog wrote: Removing violence from our nature would not render us incapable of progress. The benefits to society would be tremendous if it did not need to constantly deal with the violent members among it.

What I'm saying is that I don't think you can just "remove violence" any more than you could remove the hydrogen from water and still keep it water or make a delicious sugary cake into a health food. I think our violence comes from the same mental space as a host of other things that we don't want to get rid of. Getting rid of the possibility of violence would entail getting rid of passion and drive and initiative as well. I don't think humans can have those things without the possibility of violence resulting from it.

We can control our impulses, and we can be well-socialized, but seeking to just dart in with our genetic scalpel and cut out something bad IMHO is falling prey to the same fallacy that says that the economy can be modeled cleanly like a big machine with a series of simultaneous equations. It's so much more complicated than that, and assuming too much about our ability to rationally manipulate things we can't fully understand is hubristic.

FYI I never watched that Star Trek episode so I'm not advocating that anyone become an adherent of the Church of Kirk or something.

Posted: **Tue Apr 16, 2013 3:08 pm**

Simonjester wrote:
rocketdog wrote:
I'm not criticizing Star Trek here (Gene Rodenberry was a humanist, which I consider myself to be as well). I'm just not sure I would base my argument on the plotline of a TV show, no matter how good the show might be.

Removing violence from our nature would not render us incapable of progress. The benefits to society would be tremendous if it did not need to constantly deal with the violent members among it.
until something violent came along and took advantage of our weakened state...

kinda reminds me of a Simpsons episode
" - Homer buys a monkey's paw that gives him three wishes. Of course, all his wishes go horribly wrong, in particular the world peace one. All weapons and war are banished, which leaves Earth open to invasion from the pathetic aliens with their feeble weapons. Homer gets rid of the paw, and Flanders picks it up and decides to sort things out:

An alien chases Moe down the street.

Alien: Kneel before my slingshot, puny earthling!

Ned makes his wish to get rid of the aliens - suddenly, Moe is chasing the alien, brandishing a board with a nail in it. The aliens are defeated, and fly off to lick their wounds.

Kodos: Well Kang, it seems the earthlings won.

Kang: Did they? That board with a nail in it may have defeated us. But the humans won't stop there. They'll make bigger boards and bigger nails, and soon, they will make a board with a nail so big, it will destroy them all!"

Mayor Quimby (sounding like JFK, of course) wrote: I proudly declare this town... utterly defenseless!

Posted: **Tue Apr 16, 2013 3:53 pm**

The cerebral cortex is the thinking part of the brain where logic and judgment reside. It is the outer portion of the brain and is divided into lobes. Think of the cortex as the strategy center of the brain.

The emotional center of the brain is the limbic system. It is located lower in the brain and is considered to be more primitive than the cortex.

When someone is experiencing and expressing anger, he or she is not using the thinking cortex part of the brain, but primarily, the limbic center of the brain.

So the question is, why is it beneficial in the modern world to turn off the thinking part of your brain and go on auto pilot in essence letting your animal side take control. Maybe when we roamed the earth as simple tribal creatures this had some use, but today???

Posted: **Tue Apr 16, 2013 4:40 pm**

Doodle, if you subscribe to such a mechanistic view of the human mind, I don't know what to tell you. Whatever happened to your eastern philosophy kick? Do you truly believe it's so easy to understand and manipulate the workings of the mind?

Posted: **Tue Apr 16, 2013 5:56 pm**

Pointedstick wrote: Perhaps I'm defining violence clumsily, but I think that violence is one of the outcomes of a mental state that is active. I'm not talking about blustery ego or bellicosity, but a mind that is preoccupied with what is outside rather than what is within.

When I think of violence, I always think of the neighbor in American Beauty...

Posted: **Tue Apr 16, 2013 5:59 pm**

MediumTex wrote: The original series had outstanding writing and really nicely structured plotlines and characters.

I didn't "get it" until I caught the digitally remastered being shown on syndication a few years ago. The first two seasons with Roddenberry at the helm were simply awesome.

Posted: **Tue Apr 16, 2013 8:29 pm**

Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America

It is in the DNA, both cultural and biological.

Posted: **Tue Apr 16, 2013 9:07 pm**

Yes, let's performe major brain surgery on every human being in the entire world to remove the "bad" emotions.

Brilliant! Bonus points if it's against their will, for the "good of society."

Now when the pit bull attacks my daughter I can calmly dial 911 and ask for their most polite dog cuddler instead of pummeling it with my fists while she runs away...I can't wait for this violence free society. Pure genius!

Gyroscopic Investing

5 Mind-Blowing Facts Nobody Told You About Guns

5 Mind-Blowing Facts Nobody Told You About Guns

Re: 5 Mind-Blowing Facts Nobody Told You About Guns

Re: 5 Mind-Blowing Facts Nobody Told You About Guns

Re: 5 Mind-Blowing Facts Nobody Told You About Guns

Re: 5 Mind-Blowing Facts Nobody Told You About Guns

Re: 5 Mind-Blowing Facts Nobody Told You About Guns

Re: 5 Mind-Blowing Facts Nobody Told You About Guns

Re: 5 Mind-Blowing Facts Nobody Told You About Guns

Re: 5 Mind-Blowing Facts Nobody Told You About Guns

Re: 5 Mind-Blowing Facts Nobody Told You About Guns

Re: 5 Mind-Blowing Facts Nobody Told You About Guns

Re: 5 Mind-Blowing Facts Nobody Told You About Guns

Re: 5 Mind-Blowing Facts Nobody Told You About Guns

Re: 5 Mind-Blowing Facts Nobody Told You About Guns

Re: 5 Mind-Blowing Facts Nobody Told You About Guns

Re: 5 Mind-Blowing Facts Nobody Told You About Guns

Re: 5 Mind-Blowing Facts Nobody Told You About Guns

Re: 5 Mind-Blowing Facts Nobody Told You About Guns

Re: 5 Mind-Blowing Facts Nobody Told You About Guns

Re: 5 Mind-Blowing Facts Nobody Told You About Guns

Re: 5 Mind-Blowing Facts Nobody Told You About Guns

Re: 5 Mind-Blowing Facts Nobody Told You About Guns

Re: 5 Mind-Blowing Facts Nobody Told You About Guns

Re: 5 Mind-Blowing Facts Nobody Told You About Guns

Re: 5 Mind-Blowing Facts Nobody Told You About Guns