If you want my honest opinion I don't think "our" society is more violent at all. We are just living in our society right now and we think it is more violent.
If you want my honest opinion I don't think "our" society is more violent at all. We are just living in our society right now and we think it is more violent.
How's that for optimistic?</strong><hr></blockquote>
it's very optimistic. I don't know for US , but in France the statistic is there , the society is more violent. More crime, more verbal aggressions and more tension : it's not cool.
<strong>Well, since you said you have statistics regarding France's downward moral spiral, would you care to share them? And the source? </strong><hr></blockquote>
The source is the minister of Interior : the minister who is in charge of security and others things. since the 80's the statistic are becoming worse and worse.
Now i have to find a link where they are noted , because i do not remember it by heart. See them in TV, and was share to me by your mayor who use to be the chief of security in France under the Minister of Chevenement.
From memory i can said that the % of resulution of murder is 80 % (in 80 % of the case we find the author and judge him, and apply the judgement), for others stuff it drops to 5 % . And in 30 % of the case the judgement are not applied, for technical reasons or because the author has got away.
This is very bad numbers for justice.
Concerning violence i will find to search some links in the web.
It seems society is becoming more violent. Goverat, I don't know if you were just kidding, but your expressed sentiment is not too far off.
Perhaps the context of violence is different (if not the outright nature). The nature of violence probably does not change, though the nature of violent acts does.
Before we can say whether or not there is really more 'violence' we have to know what acts you will count, and where you will count them.
A global picture of violence would have to include areas (geographic and ideological) of extreme poverty, warfare, occupation of lands, ideological oppression, slavery, sexual subjugation, blatant exploitation, etc etc...
In many respects the first world is safer than it has ever been. Safer than 100, or 50, or even 25 years ago. It just doesn't seem like it. A lot of crime stands out now because it is the exception to the rule -- still awful, but not indicative of the relative state of a community -- Places exist where murder, theft, rape, vandalism, prostitution, trafficing and racketeering form the status-quo. Uhhh, now I'm feeling all socialistic and dirty, better go wash of the stench.
It's the end of the world. Wars, famines, plauges, peoples love running cold, man against man, dogs and cats living together, MASS HYSTERIA!!! <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> (Someone had to say it. Might as well be me...)
On the more serious side of things. I see two trends. People are getting more self-centered and care less about others well being unless it benefits them. So crime itself may be going up in some areas but down in others, but the nature of the crimes seems to be getting more violent overall. That may be a flawed perception due to sensationalism in the news media and such, but the perception is there.
People as 'self centered' is an interesting commentary that may, like perceptions of violence, be largely illusory. Social and personality psychologists like to maintain that people are generally good (and concerned with the well being of others), but they have the difficulty of explaining all the bad/indifferent stuff we do.
Studies of heroism and group dynamics paint an interesting picture. I might be tempted to say they paint us as generally good, but weak, though a finer distinction may be drawn by saying, we're highly susceptible.
To what? Basically, stimuli that you would never think to associate with a moral/ethical qualification. Physical dynamics like proximity, quantity and priority have profound impact on our willingness to act. Those are things which a modern city provides in spades. You may not believe it, but data suggests that simple elements like a lab coat and a clip board are enough to make you doubt your (even strongly held) convictions and that a gradual acclimation, or the perception of autority (by status or numbers) are enough to make you act against or otherwise modify what you claim to believe. The right conditions can even modify your perceptions of stimuli.
We seem to be designed to plug into a social grid that guides behavior through all manner of cues. However, our sensitivity to these stimuli can make the social enviroment virtually overpowering. In situations where the person is freed from these pressures we find more heros. For example, if in danger, you are much more likely to be helped by stranger when you are in a secluded area, than by any number of strangers if you are on the side of a busy street. It isn't indifference, many will look at you with genuine concern, but for most, it will stop there.
It might also be true, that when the pressures have reached a kind of critical moment another kind of person is freed from them (momentarily**) by becoming a great villian (or a sociopath).
One (very basic and largely archetypal appreciation) is that we are mostly like drones, with a few heros and a few villians, either of which arise through a simple exertion of will. Moreover, an exertion of will is often enough to make a leader irrespective of other genuine talents. It is a simple, but deceptively powerful mechanism.
**edit: I somehow wrote monetarily instead of momentarily, err. sorry.
We hate people aren't like us. Either we feel like we're the minority and without a voice or we're the majority and we demand our values be upheld over others'. Either way, voilence seems to get the job done faster and without the consequences people assume it might have.
I would have to agree with Groverat that the overall level of violence is not higher than it was in, say, 1860. It may appera as such because contemporary media compresses a world of violence into a small living room . . . whereas, in the past you either had to read about it in a newspaper or hear gossip or feel it directly.
Looking back at newspapers from farming regions in the US in the 19th century you can see that there was very much violence: lots of barn burnings and murders and just plain whacked out craziness. Plus there were World Wars last century, remember!?!??!
I think that what Matsu says is in part very true though I think that it reveals a cognative psychological perspective and I think that though it reveals a lot of uncosciouse factors at play it doesn't go as far as to acctually attribute anything to such motivations. Whereas I think that the repressed unconsciouse is something that should be acknowledged and seen for what it reveals: namely that we are all staining for satisfactions that we never attain and this straining culminates in violence if social sublimations are not plentiful and distraccting enough . . . as well as all the factors that he pointed out.
so, the swings of violence/ non violence I think are there but not really anymore so now than in the past: or rather, the past was more brutal than we tend to admit.
<strong>I think that many people here are wondering why our society is more violent than it was before. (At least in Europe)
Does it come from our culture, economic problem, excess of liberty, education ...?
All opinions are wellcome. The debate is open.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Society is becoming LESS violent, but we hear about the incidents of violence and they stand out more.
You have to look at it like this: 50 years ago, people were much more ready to accept violence on some average level. Nowadays, because of the brainwashing of public schools and sweetness media, and the "shock" that media expresses about violence, people are much less able to understand and deal with violence in any case. 50 years ago, people died from rusty nails & cholera, in this country (the US). We're led to believe today that no one ever dies unless it's from a gunshot wound or not wearing their seatbelt. Heck, even AIDS doesn't kill people anymore, haven't you heard?
New york City is a perfect example. It used to be an extremely hostile place. In the last decade it has done an about face. Murder, mugging, general crime, is way down.
[quote] If you want my honest opinion I don't think "our" society is more violent at all. We are just living in our society right now and we think it is more violent. -Groverat<hr></blockquote>
I agree! I think because of the increase in communication methods around the world we are just more aware of it. There was a time when public hangings, duels and disembowelments were the status-quo.
Not only that, but they were viewed as entertainment.
In modern times, how often to nations war for the sake of increasing their lands.
I don't think violence will ever go away but
I do believe we've evolved and improved overall.
If statistically France is seeing an increase in violence it is up to their government to take action to improve the situation.
I agree but it don't answer to my question. However, even if there is no increase there is problems of violence in USA too. The example of New York demonstrate that violence is not a fate, and that security can be increase without violating the humans rights.
The violence things (at least in France) is not a perception things : the media does not speak of all the problems : each day in each big towns there is cars burnings and the media does not always report this in order to not scare people.
when you are poor you are more concerned by this problems.
I don't remember this stuff too well but population and violence don't seem to scale linearly with each other, at least not in urban areas. Maybe there is a take-off point in population density where every percentage increase in population creates a disproportionate increase in crime so that an average city of 1 million people will have a base number of crimes but when you put 2 million people in the same space you get more than twice as much crime. It makes sense on some levels: bigger cities are harder to administrate so crimes rise exponentially for any given population increase over a certain limit. Furthermore, that limit could be a moving target based on the quality, efficiency, and reach of infrastructures already in place. If you have a small police dept in a growing area the criminals will learn of it very quickly. They're like roaches, if you don't stomp even one, you get a nest.
OTOH, it's been over 5 years since I've read anything about this particular theory of urban crime. It's far from exhaustive, it may even be largely discredited or irrelevant now. Anybody know about this stuff? What's the word?
edit: I think poverty and employment are probably much better indicators, though.
Comments
If you want my honest opinion I don't think "our" society is more violent at all. We are just living in our society right now and we think it is more violent.
How's that for optimistic?
<strong>Which society? The French?
If you want my honest opinion I don't think "our" society is more violent at all. We are just living in our society right now and we think it is more violent.
How's that for optimistic?</strong><hr></blockquote>
it's very optimistic. I don't know for US , but in France the statistic is there , the society is more violent. More crime, more verbal aggressions and more tension : it's not cool.
<strong>Well, since you said you have statistics regarding France's downward moral spiral, would you care to share them? And the source?
The source is the minister of Interior : the minister who is in charge of security and others things. since the 80's the statistic are becoming worse and worse.
Now i have to find a link where they are noted , because i do not remember it by heart. See them in TV, and was share to me by your mayor who use to be the chief of security in France under the Minister of Chevenement.
From memory i can said that the % of resulution of murder is 80 % (in 80 % of the case we find the author and judge him, and apply the judgement), for others stuff it drops to 5 % . And in 30 % of the case the judgement are not applied, for technical reasons or because the author has got away.
This is very bad numbers for justice.
Concerning violence i will find to search some links in the web.
Perhaps the context of violence is different (if not the outright nature). The nature of violence probably does not change, though the nature of violent acts does.
Before we can say whether or not there is really more 'violence' we have to know what acts you will count, and where you will count them.
A global picture of violence would have to include areas (geographic and ideological) of extreme poverty, warfare, occupation of lands, ideological oppression, slavery, sexual subjugation, blatant exploitation, etc etc...
In many respects the first world is safer than it has ever been. Safer than 100, or 50, or even 25 years ago. It just doesn't seem like it. A lot of crime stands out now because it is the exception to the rule -- still awful, but not indicative of the relative state of a community -- Places exist where murder, theft, rape, vandalism, prostitution, trafficing and racketeering form the status-quo. Uhhh, now I'm feeling all socialistic and dirty, better go wash of the stench.
So in France, that seems not to be the case? I heard that crime was a big issue in the election there?
This is un-PC, but I think diversity is the problem.
:eek:
People just have a natural tendency to divide and fight. Perhaps France has become more diverse over the past several years/decades?
Race relations (I mean ethnic/religious relations, too) is probably the biggest issue most open societies will have to deal with, IMO.
On the more serious side of things. I see two trends. People are getting more self-centered and care less about others well being unless it benefits them. So crime itself may be going up in some areas but down in others, but the nature of the crimes seems to be getting more violent overall. That may be a flawed perception due to sensationalism in the news media and such, but the perception is there.
[ 04-29-2002: Message edited by: NoahJ ]</p>
Studies of heroism and group dynamics paint an interesting picture. I might be tempted to say they paint us as generally good, but weak, though a finer distinction may be drawn by saying, we're highly susceptible.
To what? Basically, stimuli that you would never think to associate with a moral/ethical qualification. Physical dynamics like proximity, quantity and priority have profound impact on our willingness to act. Those are things which a modern city provides in spades. You may not believe it, but data suggests that simple elements like a lab coat and a clip board are enough to make you doubt your (even strongly held) convictions and that a gradual acclimation, or the perception of autority (by status or numbers) are enough to make you act against or otherwise modify what you claim to believe. The right conditions can even modify your perceptions of stimuli.
We seem to be designed to plug into a social grid that guides behavior through all manner of cues. However, our sensitivity to these stimuli can make the social enviroment virtually overpowering. In situations where the person is freed from these pressures we find more heros. For example, if in danger, you are much more likely to be helped by stranger when you are in a secluded area, than by any number of strangers if you are on the side of a busy street. It isn't indifference, many will look at you with genuine concern, but for most, it will stop there.
It might also be true, that when the pressures have reached a kind of critical moment another kind of person is freed from them (momentarily**) by becoming a great villian (or a sociopath).
One (very basic and largely archetypal appreciation) is that we are mostly like drones, with a few heros and a few villians, either of which arise through a simple exertion of will. Moreover, an exertion of will is often enough to make a leader irrespective of other genuine talents. It is a simple, but deceptively powerful mechanism.
**edit: I somehow wrote monetarily instead of momentarily, err. sorry.
[ 05-02-2002: Message edited by: Matsu ]</p>
Looking back at newspapers from farming regions in the US in the 19th century you can see that there was very much violence: lots of barn burnings and murders and just plain whacked out craziness. Plus there were World Wars last century, remember!?!??!
I think that what Matsu says is in part very true though I think that it reveals a cognative psychological perspective and I think that though it reveals a lot of uncosciouse factors at play it doesn't go as far as to acctually attribute anything to such motivations. Whereas I think that the repressed unconsciouse is something that should be acknowledged and seen for what it reveals: namely that we are all staining for satisfactions that we never attain and this straining culminates in violence if social sublimations are not plentiful and distraccting enough . . . as well as all the factors that he pointed out.
so, the swings of violence/ non violence I think are there but not really anymore so now than in the past: or rather, the past was more brutal than we tend to admit.
<strong>I think that many people here are wondering why our society is more violent than it was before. (At least in Europe)
Does it come from our culture, economic problem, excess of liberty, education ...?
All opinions are wellcome. The debate is open.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Society is becoming LESS violent, but we hear about the incidents of violence and they stand out more.
You have to look at it like this: 50 years ago, people were much more ready to accept violence on some average level. Nowadays, because of the brainwashing of public schools and sweetness media, and the "shock" that media expresses about violence, people are much less able to understand and deal with violence in any case. 50 years ago, people died from rusty nails & cholera, in this country (the US). We're led to believe today that no one ever dies unless it's from a gunshot wound or not wearing their seatbelt. Heck, even AIDS doesn't kill people anymore, haven't you heard?
I agree! I think because of the increase in communication methods around the world we are just more aware of it. There was a time when public hangings, duels and disembowelments were the status-quo.
Not only that, but they were viewed as entertainment.
In modern times, how often to nations war for the sake of increasing their lands.
I don't think violence will ever go away but
I do believe we've evolved and improved overall.
If statistically France is seeing an increase in violence it is up to their government to take action to improve the situation.
[ 05-05-2002: Message edited by: skaione ]</p>
<strong>
If statistically France is seeing an increase in violence it is up to their government to take action to improve the situation.
[ 05-05-2002: Message edited by: skaione ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree but it don't answer to my question. However, even if there is no increase there is problems of violence in USA too. The example of New York demonstrate that violence is not a fate, and that security can be increase without violating the humans rights.
The violence things (at least in France) is not a perception things : the media does not speak of all the problems : each day in each big towns there is cars burnings and the media does not always report this in order to not scare people.
when you are poor you are more concerned by this problems.
<strong>Is the violence-rate increasing faster than the population? That's the real question.</strong><hr></blockquote>
In France yes : 5 % per year of violence increase, increase of population less than 1 % .
OTOH, it's been over 5 years since I've read anything about this particular theory of urban crime. It's far from exhaustive, it may even be largely discredited or irrelevant now. Anybody know about this stuff? What's the word?
edit: I think poverty and employment are probably much better indicators, though.
[ 05-05-2002: Message edited by: Matsu ]</p>