The Myth of Increasing Violence

[Thorne]

Interesting talk. Thanks for that, TS.

It's nice to hear someone say many of the same things I've been saying, and have the data to back it up. Rates of violent crime have been dropping steadily for some time. What has been increasing, as the speaker noted, is the reporting of violence. In our modern world, with virtually instantaneous communications, the murder of an old woman in a small town becomes world-wide knowledge within hours. The story of the capture of her killer is likely to be far less widespread, leaving the impression to many people that he's still "out there", ready to pounce.

I have to disagree with denuseri, though (gee, anyone really surprised?). I encourage people to "go back to nature" and embrace a primitive lifestyle. It's a Darwinian win-win situation. We remove the kooks from civilization and reduce the surplus population.

[thir]

embrace a primitive lifestyle. It's a Darwinian win-win situation. We remove the kooks from civilization and reduce the surplus population.

Hm, yes. However, it is a fact that we have become rather overcivilized and are depending on technology to an extent that makes for a very vulnerable society, not least in the cities. Should anything drastic really happen, as it will if we keep going this way, it will not be the people from the incubators of technology that make it.

[thir]

It's nice to hear someone say many of the same things I've been saying, and have the data to back it up.

We are all tempted to listen to whoever says what we want to hear - don't I know it! ;-)

But I am surprised at you when you say he has the data to back it up, you who go so much for science and searching for and proving the truth which, I admit, is a very sound principle.

SP is making a rather sweeping statement that violence is decreasing all over the world. Even if he actually means the Western world, you'd need substantial evidence for such a claim, and someone else would have had to repeat your research with the same result, right?

Now, if you had had a proper reserach, saying investigaitng murders through time, or wars through time, or laws through time, in a specific area, and you had sources (rather than a source) to back up your findings, then there would be reason for others to repeat that result and thereby confirm it.

But SP is all over the place, with all kinds of violence, here and there through history, both in times with written accounts, and in times where no such material is available. And it is all based on two sources whose results are not themselves confirmed, FBI files, and unnamed un-governmental sources (which government?)

Steve P comes across as convincing, because he is convinced. But there is not much evidence for his claims, and I wonder how he is not bothered that there is, as he says, no explanation for why it should be so. He offers various psychological or philosophical explanations, which I are think are unsuited to explain such a claim on their own. I would like substantial social changes to back it up.

[leo9]

We are all tempted to listen to whoever says what we want to hear - don't I know it! ;-)

But I am surprised at you when you say he has the data to back it up, you who go so much for science and searching for and proving the truth which, I admit, is a very sound principle.

So far as I can see, he does have the data to back it up. Of course one has to either take his figures on trust, or go back to his original sources and check them; that goes for any academic paper. But he does give specific sources, so anyone can check his figures, and I have not seen any of his detractors accusing him of falsifying or inventing them.

SP is making a rather sweeping statement that violence is decreasing all over the world. Even if he actually means the Western world, you'd need substantial evidence for such a claim, and someone else would have had to repeat your research with the same result, right?

He quotes specific figures from specific sources for specific populations (in this case, the whole world.) I'm not sure how much more evidence you want. You can argue with the interpretation of the data, but you can't say it's not there.

Now, if you had had a proper reserach, saying investigaitng murders through time, or wars through time, or laws through time, in a specific area, and you had sources (rather than a source) to back up your findings, then there would be reason for others to repeat that result and thereby confirm it.

But that's exactly what he does have. Eisner's work sounds like a prime example of the value of statistical history, and how it can illuminate trends that aren't obvious without quantitative study.

Of course it's possible that Eisner is a bad statistician, that he has selectively chosen his data or wrongly analysed it. It would be ideal if someone were to replicate his work from the original sources, and I'm sure someone will, though it would take a long time; that kind of research is like sorting a barn full of corn grain by grain, and few people have the patience or the funding. But again, I don't see anyone criticising his accuracy.

But SP is all over the place, with all kinds of violence, here and there through history, both in times with written accounts, and in times where no such material is available. And it is all based on two sources whose results are not themselves confirmed, FBI files, and unnamed un-governmental sources (which government?)

The FBI files are in the public domain, so anyone can check his figures. For the other, he quotes non-governmental agencies, which is to say charities, relief agencies and suchlike. He doesn't give names in his talk, because that's not the place for such detail, but presumably he gives them elsewhere, or he'd be soundly trashed for that; and again, the data from such organisations is available for anyone to check if they doubt his figures.

Steve P comes across as convincing, because he is convinced. But there is not much evidence for his claims,

He has quantitative studies from a large chunk of European history, the recent past of Europe and the US, and the recent past of the whole world. I would say that was a body of evidence deserving of attention, at the very least.

and I wonder how he is not bothered that there is, as he says, no explanation for why it should be so.

You are suffering from an illness for which nobody has a definite explanation. That does not, thank goodness, stop people from studying it and making practical suggestions based on what can be known about it.

He offers various psychological or philosophical explanations, which I are think are unsuited to explain such a claim on their own. I would like substantial social changes to back it up.

But he is not offering these as proof of his thesis: his proof is in the evidence. The explanation is a secondary question.

I guess, like Thorne, I agree with him because he's saying what I have always said, and it's nice to have someone come along and put hard figures behind our beliefs. But I am trying not to let that blind me to his faults. I agree that his style is too manipulative, and his use of data on present-day hunter-gatherers to draw conclusions about the Neolithic is a major mistake. In the first place the list he gives is cherry-picked for the most notoriously violent tribes, and in the second place it's a classic fallacy to assume that present day "primitives" are living fossils; they have the same thousands of years history as the rest of us, and even if they are still using something like the same tools for the same jobs as the Neolithics, that is no evidence that they haven't changed in other important ways. But his evidence from real archaology is impressive, and surprised me.

[leo9]

So far as I can see, he does have the data to back it up.

OK, I was far too sweeping here. Some of his claims have data to back them up: some are based simply on drawing conclusions from one historical source; and all of them are partial, covering one aspect of the general theme of violence while saying nothing about others.

But he does give specific sources

My mistake: he does not detail the NGOs who are the source of the world statistics.

But his evidence from real archaology is impressive, and surprised me.

My mistake again. That evidence isn't part of the original paper, it's not even his: I had been reading the book he got his chart of hunter-gatherers from. Nothing to do with this thread.

That post was a mess, I'm sorry. I've been having a tiring week.