Media, The Great Hysteria Maker

Most people believe that violence has been on the rise, but in his book The Better Angles Of Our Nature, Harvard Psychologist Steven Pinker presents compelling data that even when we factor in horrific events like World War II and the Holocaust, violence has been on the decline. I suspect that some of this stems from medical and hygienic advances that allow individuals injured in warfare or criminal instances to survive, however there is no escaping the fact that the per capita rate of murder has plummeted in the last millennium. Few people are aware of this because the media is the great hysteria maker knows that fear sells. I believe this is one of several factors that have had a corrosive effect of community life in the United States.

Book Review: The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined

Rates of violent deaths have declined, but psychologist Robert Epstein argues in this review that it is too early to praise human nature's "better angels."

By Robert Epstein  | October 7, 2011 | 8

• Share
• Email
• Print

Image: Viking Adult

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), worldwide military expenditures have been growing annually for the past 15 years, and between 15 and 20 major armed conflicts—yes, wars—are in progress as you read this. All told, upward of 175 million people died in war-related violence during the 20th century, plus another eight million because of conflicts among individuals.

Even so, according to a weighty new book,The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined (Viking Adult, 2011), by Harvard University psychologist Steven Pinker, the "better angels" of human nature have actually brought about a dramatic reduction in violence during the past few millennia. Yes, the absolute number of victims has been rising, but relative to the world’s population, the numbers look good.

The shift toward nonviolence, he says, has been driven by many factors, such as the spread of agriculture and the rise of feminism and democracy. Such trends have led to a reduction in institutionalized torture and execution and slavery and, especially in recent years, to an increase in the rights of women, homosexuals, children andanimals.

Pinker acknowledges that one's immediate experience belies these facts to the point where you might even want to call him "hallucinatory." Yet the wealth of data he presents cannot be ignored—unless, that is, you take the same liberties as he sometimes does in his book. In two lengthy chapters, Pinker describes psychological processes that make us either violent or peaceful, respectively. Our dark side is driven by a evolution-based propensity toward predation and dominance. On the angelic side, we have, or at least can learn, some degree of self-control, which allows us to inhibit dark tendencies.

There is, however, another psychological process—confirmation bias—that Pinker sometimes succumbs to in his book. People pay more attention to facts that match their beliefs than those that undermine them. Pinker wants peace, and he also believes in his hypothesis; it is no surprise that he focuses more on facts that support his views than on those that do not. The SIPRI arms data are problematic, and a reader can also cherry-pick facts from Pinker's own book that are inconsistent with his position. He notes, for example, that during the 20th century homicide rates failed to decline in both the U.S. and England. He also describes in graphic and disturbing detail the savage way in which chimpanzees—our closest genetic relatives in the animal world—torture and kill their own kind.

Of greater concern is the assumption on which Pinker's entire case rests: that we look at relative numbers instead of absolute numbers in assessing human violence. But why should we be content with only a relative decrease? By this logic, when we reach a world population of nine billion in 2050, Pinker will conceivably be satisfied if a mere two million people are killed in war that year.

The biggest problem with the book, though, is its overreliance on history, which, like the light on a caboose, shows us only where we are not going. We live in a time when all the rules are being rewritten blindingly fast—when, for example, an increasingly smaller number of people can do increasingly greater damage. Yes, when you move from the Stone Age to modern times, some violence is left behind, but what happens when you put weapons of mass destruction into the hands of modern people who in many ways are still living primitively? What happens when the unprecedented occurs—when a country such as Iran, where women are still waiting for even the slightest glimpse of those better angels, obtains nuclear weapons? Pinker doesn’t say.

The Middle Path To Understanding (And Addressing) The Racial Achievement Gap

The existence of a glaring achievement gap among different racial and ethnic groups within the United States is widely known. When we analyze rates of high school graduation, college attendance, unemployment, income, incarceration, obesity and out of wedlock births, we find that Asian-Americans enjoy the most positive outcomes, followed by European-Americans and then Hispanic-Americans with African- Americans demonstrating the most troublesome statistics. Where the greatest disagreement lies in on the explanation for this persistent phenomena. Progressive explanations typically center on the following factors of continued Institutional Racism and White Privilege. Whereas, conservative explanations usually discount racism, instead focusing on: cultural pathologies that encourage poor social and economic strategies.

The first glaring problem with the progressive explanation is that not only have Asian-Americans outperformed European-Americans in every social and economic measure, but so have African Immigrants. For example, 43.8% of African Immigrants are college graduates, which greatly exceeds the national average of 23.1%. If the "white power structure" and "institutional racism" are the deciding factors in educational and economic achievement, how is it possible that Indian, Japanese and Chinese immigrants have risen so quickly and are now doing better than whites? And interestingly this same phenomena is mirrored on an international level, with East Asian nations experiencing outstripping most European Nations in educational and even economic output. This clearly demonstrates the economic and social welfare are not static phenomena; throughout history, the fortunes of individuals, groups, nations and even regions have risen and fallen.

This phenomena become much clearer when we "look at the trees" rather than at the "forest, i.e. focus on specific, individual values, behaviors and choices that increase or decrease an individual's chance for improving their economic and social trajectory. The reason I chose to focus on trajectory, is because comparing the absolute outcome of (let's say) the child of a working class immigrant to a well established, middle class family would neither be fair nor allow us to fully determine the effect of culture and choice. But, comparing the relative improvement or decline of each individual or group would allow us to do so. And exploring the multi-generation trajectory of families and groups paints an even clearer pictures of the dynamics that government social and economic assent and decline. 

Or, to be even more specific, we could ask ourselves what advise would we give to a friend or family member about how to improve their chances for success? Here are the most obvious: dedicate more time to studying, at all costs do not drop out of high school, do not have a child before you graduate, do not have a child until you are married and financially stable, avoid engaging in behaviors that run the risk of arrest,  if possible choose a highly marketable field of study, such as math, science and engineering, live beneath your means, establish a good credit history, save and invest in the future. While making the right choices are not absolute determinants of one's trajectory, no one can deny that there exists a very strong correlation between choices, behaviors and outcomes. When we "compare apples to apples," or the more upwardly mobile to  the less upwardly mobile components of the African-American community, we will certainly encounter markedly different approaches to family, education, employment, saving and investment strategies. And unless we are hopelessly intellectually dishonest, we will see that the same is true for more (and less) upwardly mobile ethnic groups. To put it simply, Indians and African Immigrants have risen so quickly, because a higher percentage of their respective groups adopted values, choices and strategies that are conducive to success and African-Americans and (to a lesser extent) Hispanic and European-Americans have not. 

There is a balanced middle path that does not look at issues of social pathology as an either / or phenomena; they acknowledge the continued effects of racism, but believe that they are greatly amplified by the prevailing culture, values and behaviors of individuals and communities alike. In this day and age, such choices have a far greater bearing on the social and economic welfare of individuals and communities than racism and white privilege. For example, many African-American communities are provided by substandard schools, whose negative effects are amplified by the insufficient commitment to learning and discipline present in many families. But, those who take the middle way differ from most conservatives by their acknowledgement that culture and behavior do not occur in a vacuum; they are products of one's history and experience. In other words, the most pernicious aspect of America's long history of racist oppression is that it degraded the social and cultural capital of its victims, leaving them in a state in which they cannot fully capitalize on the rapidly expanding opportunities of a free society.

Decimate a  people's common culture, outlaw education for 5 generations and provide shamefully substandard schooling for 3 more and it will not come as a surprise that a substantial portion of the next generations will be left without a tradition of learning. Subject several generations to slavery and bar their descendants from all but the most menial professions and do not be surprised if the next generations do not see the connection of work and discipline to upward mobility. And then finally when you acknowledge the magnitude of the crime you committed against a whole people, you seek to make amends by the massive expansion of the welfare state that renders a portion of the beleaguered community dependent on the state, with their traditional family structure eviscerated. Part of this tragic drama are the "experts" and "activists" who treat the battered community like children and passive agents who are incapable of shaping their environment and their destinies, like other communities have done so before them. Their refusal to assign any responsibility to diverse communities for the problems that they face may stem from a well meaning prohibition against "blaming the victim," but it has eroded their capacity to acknowledge and address the pathological behaviors and cultural patterns that play a major role in shaping disparate outcomes.

The view of the Middle Way begs the questions: What can be done? If personal choice and culture are driving forces in the trajectory of individuals, communities and cultures, can the state do anything to induce real, positive change? Relatively to progressives, who have deep faith in the power of the state to shape equal outcomes, classical liberals (libertarians) believe that at best the state can expand equal opportunity. The problem is not that universities are discriminating against diverse groups, quite to the contrary, most are religiously pursuing "diversity" and "equal outcomes." Rather, the dearth of qualified high school graduates means that far too diverse students are able to capitalize on these unprecedented opportunities. So, improving the dismal schools that diverse communities face is of paramount importance. Without real improvement in educational outcomes, progress will remain elusive and economic inequality will continue to worsen.

How schools can be improved is truly a vexing question, because more than a half century of efforts by the educational establishment to bridge achievement gaps have bore little fruit. Rather than repeat the tried and failed formula of: increased funding, increased federalization and the pursuit of unproven pedagogic fads, a new paradigm must approached: school choice and competition. Unlike most of my conservative brethren, I make no illusions that the said factors can improve failing schools, but at the very least they can offer expanded opportunity for the students who are willing and able to pursue them. And on an even broader level, the education establishment must shift its focus from the study of failure, towards understanding and promoting the norms, values, behaviors and strategies that upwardly groups (Asian-Americans) and nations have pursued. As painful as it may be to admit, not only do schools shape their students, but students and their families have a central role in determining the quality of the schools. So, without a shift in the values, norms and behaviors that predominate in a community, even the most well run schools will still produce dismal results.

This brings us to the topic of welfare. As a classical liberal (libertarian) I would like to see welfare in its present form significantly reduced. However, until we arrive at that improbable point, the best we can hope for is to reform welfare programs so that they will subsidize positive, rather than pathological choices. Increasing subsidies for welfare recipients who choose to not have more children (than they can afford and educate) may constitute excessive social engineering for most conservatives, but would ultimately offer a net decrease in expenditures and provide incentives for positive behavioral changes. In addition, the incentive structure that governs social welfare agencies needs to be transformed; social workers and bureaucrats who are able to help their clients transition away from dependency and pathology should be offered bonuses. Mandating full time employment, even "menial jobs" that "Americans won't do" for all adults in a household that receive welfare is essential for breaking the cycle of dependency and re-establishing a culture of work.

Ultimately what characterizes the middle way is intellectual honesty, a belief that we must allow facts and reason to carry us to logical conclusions, now matter how uncomfortable they make us, no matter how offensive others find them. For using sophistry to support comfortable narratives will spare feelings, but will lead us to continue pursuing the ineffective paths and policies of the last half century. The first step towards real compassion is adopting the intellectually honesty acknowledgement that past racism casts its heavy shadow on the present via the persistence of widespread cultural and behavioral pathology. Failure to do so will doom future generations to even greater economic and social inequality; a more racist outcome I cannot imagine.

A Classical Liberal (Libertarian) Approach To Fighting Racism

Pictured Above: The Great Martin Luther King JR.

As someone who detests the evils of racism and sexism, I very much looked forward to taking a pedagogy class which included an anti-bias curriculum. But, early on in the class I discovered that the curriculum was heavily ideological and used as a platform to promote other political and cultural agendas. Present in this vision was the belief that the American Way was innately racist and oppressive. The driving vision of this class was a multicultural ideology that indirectly encouraged teachers to view their students as members of groups, rather than unique individuals.Among the agendas that it promoted was a curricular transformation that encouraged teachers to de-emphasize "eurocentric literature" with a "white male perspective." While these view points are worthy of debate, one need not adopt them in order to live a life free of prejudice and discrimination. In fact, the strong vein of Cultural Marxism present in anti-bias curricula has done much to dissuade well meaning Americans from embracing its otherwise reasonable message.

Perhaps what I find most troubling about some university level anti-racist programs is their invasive focus on addressing "incorrect" private thoughts, attitudes and ideologies, rather than concrete behaviors. The University of Delaware's  resident life program  even bore resemble to a Maoist era struggle session, in which participants had to confess and atone for their prohibited thoughts. New students faced one-on-one interviews, in which they were questioned by their Resident Assistants (RA) on their views on race, gender, sexuality and the environment. The secession included deeply invasive questions like "when did you discover your sexual identity" and "race?" If the purpose of these invasive sessions were to facilitate open debate and exploration, perhaps they might have been acceptable, but their stated goals were for students to accept preordained conclusions like "systemic oppression exists in our society" and to "recognize the benefits of dismantling systems of oppression." Even more troubling was the fact that RAs wrote up and delivered reports to their superiors, with one student even being written up for stating that she was "tired of having diversity shoved down her throat." 

An approach to anti-bias and anti-racism that is more effective with and attractive to Americans is one that invokes the spirit of Classical Liberalism (Libertarianism), which affirms the importance of individual (economic and social) liberty and rule of law. A key component in the success of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was his ability to present racism as a failure to realize the American Way; for what can be more Anti-American than preventing others from enjoying "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? The engine for progress in the treatment of African-Americans has not been radical efforts to reject or redefine the Great American Vision, but to fully realize it, so that all Americans can enjoy its spiritual and material fruits. And without invoking multiculturalism and other divisive ideologies, we can and should call upon our fellow Americans to reject racist behavior as an affront to civility, fairness and individualism. 

While the constitution protects individual liberty from state and private oppression, it also guarantees freedom of belief and freedom of expression, even for those who hold racist and "incorrect" beliefs. Accordingly, most classical liberals (libertarians) are not so focused on the beliefs that one may hold about groups, but in the manner in which they behave towards individuals. For example, I am not so concerned about the "improper" beliefs that some of my clients hold about my group (Jews), because they fairly treat me as an individual. How is this possible, you may ask? An observant and intellectually honest person can recognize trends that they may or may not like about any given group, while still affirming the uniqueness of each individual and treating them accordingly. When I posed this very question to a client of mine who engages in racist rants against virtually every group, yet has employed and even befriended: African-American, Puerto Rican, Mexican, Polish and Jewish individuals, his response was "I may be racist, but I am not Stupid!!!" This seemingly paradoxical view highlights the fact that participation in a competitive free market is a far more effective antidote to racist behavior than hours of indoctrination at the University of Delaware. 

I will close this post with a thoughtful speech by Dr. Ron Paul that elaborates on the hazards that even well meaning collectivist campaigns against racism hold and reaffirms the surest protection being an affirmation of individual liberty:

"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist. The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity."

  

Rembetiko, Music of My Heart

Pictured Above: Semsis, Eskenazi and Tomboulis

One of my favorite musical genres is Rembetiko, the soulful, inventive music of the Greeks of Anatolia (Asia Minor). This style is rich with Ottoman, Persian and Arabic influences, both musical and cultural and many of its great performers were Ottoman Jews and Armenians. A study of the Ottoman Empire highlights the wonderful and destructive power of multiculturalism and diversity. On one hand the incredibly rich mix of cultures, races, religions and languages produced some of the most amazing music, architecture, poetry and cuisine that has graced the world. On the other hand, it bred conflict, instability and the first Genocide of the century, ultimately leading Greece, Turkey and Bulgaria to undertake a massive population exchange, with the goal of creating more homogeneous, stable and peaceful nations. If I had to derive a one line line lesson from the Ottoman Experience for the United States, it would be as follows: enjoy the cultural blessings that diversity bring, but tread carefully, for human beings are flawed creatures of conflict. Here is a wonderful song performed in 1929 by Andonis Dalgas and one performed by the prodigious Roza Eskenazi.

Return Of The Worthy Poor?

While leafing through a university text book for a course in social work, I came across an interesting chapter on the history of charity and the welfare state. The author described and rejected prior efforts to delineate the "worthy poor" from the "unworthy poor." This concept holds that the former are comprised of individuals unable to care for themselves because they were sick, orphaned, elderly, etc. The latter are able bodied individuals whose impoverishment was conceived to stem from their pathological values, habits and choices.

Philanthropists that subscribed to this vision believed that the right to receive assistance was accompanied by the responsibility of the poor to demonstrate their willingness to work. Even progressive reformers and champions of the poor, like Jane Addams, who emphasized "structural factors" in poverty, actively sought to promote middle class values of personal responsibility, self control, sobriety and thrift among the poor families that they assisted. Later generations of reformers and progressives criticized her for this and (what they perceived to be) her efforts to "acculturate" diverse immigrants to America towards white, Anglo-American culture. Many felt that efforts to address the behavior of the poor unjustly "blamed the victim" and distracted from "oppression" and "institutional causes of poverty." Furthermore, if food, housing, health care and child care were "fundamental rights," by definition one could someone be unworthy of them. Many of the architects of the modern welfare state held and actively promoted this worldview, presumably not only on philosophical grounds, but also because government bureaucrats neither had the ability or even the will to intimately interact with recipients of aid as philanthropists had. The unprecedented post war economic boom, from the late 1940's to the 1990's, coupled with the growth of deficit financing allowed for the vast expansion of size and scope of the welfare state and accepted notions of eligibility.

Anyone who follows the news sees that the federal government, as well as most city, state and county governments are facing mounting debt. On a local level this has forced politicians to begin cutting government services, whereas the federal government's capacity to borrow and print money will, for the time being, allow it to avoid austerity measures. I am convinced that growing financial pressures will force governments to not only enact broad budget cuts, but to engage in contentious, but necessary efforts to prioritize the use of limited funds. The public and politicians will have to determine if funds should be directed towards (badly needed) programs for the mentally ill and disabled or towards fraud ridden section-8 housing vouchers. Progressives who wish to prevent the dissolution of the safety net will have to become conscience and critical of the strain that pathological behaviors, such as unchecked single motherhood and sloth place on the system. So, if not in word, at least in practice, limited government resources will force us to determine who is more and who is less worthy of receiving scarce funds. And the much maligned shame and social stigma that welfare dependency engendered may even be promoted as a cost effective means to maintain sustainable levels of participation. This should be viewed not as a "mean spirited condemnation of the less fortunate," but as an exercise in accounting and prioritization that all households and businesses must engage in on a regular basis.

Is Intellect (In Politicians) Overrated?

In the course of most political debates, supporters of President Obama inevitably turn to the topic of great intellect and the alleged cognitive deficit of his opponents. While I place great value in intellect and am troubling by the anti-intellectual vein (i.e. Sara Palin) present in conservatism, I believe that in the realm of politics, intellect can be overrated. Broad knowledge and strong analytic faculties are important components in policy making and problem solving, but history is littered with examples were a leader's or movement's intellectual hubris led them to undertake disastrous policies. Their inflated belief in the power of their intellects led to unwise and overly ambitious campaigns to reshape economic and social life according to their whims.

This is most clearly seen in the Economic Calculation Problem, or the question of how to coordinate prices, production and distribution of resources and labor in an economy. Ludwig Von Mises demonstrated that economic activity could only be rationally coordinated through the decentralized decisions of millions of consumers, producers and workers (categories which are not mutually exclusive), responding to and driving changes in prices, which convey the relative supply and demand of goods and services at any given time. Without ever meeting the multitude of individuals and industries who utilize their product, the rubber industry is provided with incentives to appropriately expand or contracts their production via changing prices. Without the "wise" mandate of a central planner, fluctuations in wages, send vital signals that reallocate labor towards regions, professions and sectors of the economy in which a real, sustainable demand exists. 

 Time and again, history has demonstrated that even the most brilliant economist or politician did not have the capacity to successfully obtain, analyze and act upon the continuous flow of data generated in an economy.When teams of brilliant economists and mathematicians attempted to do so, nations faced vexing shortages and wasteful surpluses of vital goods and services. This is also seen in the crippling booms and busts that are occur when the cost and availability of credit (interest rates) are determined by central planners, rather than by forces of supply and demand. So, if faced with the choice of a "brilliant planner," like President Obama or a "mediocre mind" who understands the inherent hazards of engaging in endless crusades to re-shape economic and social life, I will choose the latter. The path of limited government and decentralization of power are pursued by so few politicians, because it curtails the power and prestige that they command over the social and economic life of their peons...I mean citizens of the nation. 

On Kenyan Birthers

Pictured Above: President Mwai Kibaki of Kenya

President Obama's popularity has reached such a low point that we are now witnessing Kenyan Birthers. The President of Kenya, Mwai Kibaki stated "we, the people of Kenya reject insinuations that Obama was born in Kenya, clearly he is of Somali birth. No son of Kenya is capable of doubling the national debt and money supply in 3 years, waging war on Libya without congressional authorization and supporting the indefinite, prolonged detention of American citizens and foreigners alike."