What's wrong with our youth? Is it a psychosocial disorder? Is it the parents?

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

Whether you believe it or not, children have gotten much worse than they've ever been. The school shootings I mentioned earlier are proof of that. Of course they don't happen all of the time. In fact they're rare. They're an unprecedented kind of adolescent violence. I don't have a complete understanding of why they happen and I've barely begun to consider their long term consequences. I do have an opinion on the problem though. It could be from mental illness to lack of discipline, from violent media to the availability of guns. Do these theories hold water? I think they do. I'm not saying school shootings never occured in the past, but I do know they began to increase in the early 90s, peaking in the late 90s, then falling back to zero in the early part of the 21st century. Also, they only dropped off because school officials caught the problem before it got started.

They are rare and they have still received outrage and exaggerated analyses of the "state of our youth." Just like perceived increases in homicides have made people afraid of people and causes-of-death that they are least likely to actually be victimized by. Tragedies always result in exaggerated assessments that are based on a spouting of opinions and fears rather than information.

Plus, people are still going based on what they see reported in the media and others' fears and opinions. The public isn't conducting research on how many school shootings occurred before Columbine made it big and whether there have been any measurable changes to contribute an increase in violence to. You have to also consider that where such violence occurs matters. The mainstream wasn't concerned about violence as long as they THOUGHT it was kept in an "inner city and/or lower socioeconomic status bubble." As with any other incident, people's fears aren't based on an informed opinion.

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

Is violence publicized more now? Yes, and I think media coverage does contribute to school violence panic and by far aggravates the difficulties for communities in which rampage episodes have occured. Also, youth violence itself, not just the shootings, increased dramatically in the late 1980s and early 90s, a period in which rates of crime and violence among other age groups actually went down. I don't think kids and guns mix well, because the increase in homicides committed by youths came ENTIRELY in the form of murders involving firearms.

Yes, there are other factors, but we have to start by looking at which youths are violent. I'm not being biased, but I think boys are more likely to commit violent acts than girls. I also think that almost all violent offenders first manifest their tendencies between the age of 14 and 18, based on patterns that I've seen. Beyond age, race or whatever, other risk factors for violence among youths include domestic violence and abuse, weak family bonding and ineffective supervision, lack of opportunities for education and employment, peers who engage in or accept violence, drug and alcohol use, gun possession and individual temperament. Kids have always looked to elevate their status among peers, to have a permanent identity so they can acquire power over others, or find justice or retribution. Now, they use firearms to do it.

I think the increase in violence comes from violent video games, availability of guns, the crack cocaine epidemic, and a culture of violence, but I don't think any of these factors work entirely by themselves. It starts with the deteriorating social and economic conditions of inner city neighborhoods. On top of the drug epidemic, when they're unavailable, kids find other resources to get high off of. Now you have to be 18 to purchase spray paint, glue and/or Robitussin. That's ridiculous. I totally can't see how some of you can't see that kids are far worse than they've ever been. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

This is called an "everything but the kitchen sink" explanation. It makes it difficult to be accurate or inaccurate when you throw everything in there. There's a plethora of research on this topic, including research that discusses gender and violence (if boys are more violent than girls, it is more of a learned behavior and also based on the acceptability of boys' violence whereas girls are told to "be a lady"--one viable explanation for the increase in girls' violence is that women feel more liberated to do what men have always been allowed to) and the supposed "increase" in youth violence in the 1980s and the 1990s.

People can have whatever opinions about this topic but initiatives for change (not just discussion) can't be based on "everything but the kitchen sink" opinions. We can take whatever precautions that we want but that doesn't mean that every precaution is equally significant in the violence equation. The media (lyrics, video games, movies, shows...) is one factor that matters because EVERY human is affected by images both consciously and subconsciously. However, the average human will not turn this affect into violence or crime and deviance. This symbolizes that there are safety nets such as effective parenting, an attachment and belief in the legitimacy of norms and laws, education, and sound mental and emotional health (as they impact reasoning and self-regulation ability) that need to be targeted beyond just saying that the media, guns, or whatever are to blame.

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

You have to also consider that where such violence occurs matters. The mainstream wasn't concerned about violence as long as they THOUGHT it was kept in an "inner city and/or lower socioeconomic status bubble." As with any other incident, people's fears aren't based on an informed opinion.

Well, people tend to think of small town life as stable and close, the opposite of big cities. Yet change has come to many parts of the United States. I think that dense social ties have given way to more impersonal relations in rural areas and small towns. We have to understand that demographic change brought on by migration and population turnover have disrupted tight social ties between families and neighbors. I do think that a lot of the violence among youths is indeed concentrated in poor areas of our nation's inner cities. You also have to understand that during the 1970s joblessness increased in inner city communities because of the outmigration of the middle class and the movement of blue collar jobs away from U.S. cities. Economic and social stress contributed to the breakdown of families and other community supports for children and adolescents. In search of support, identity, and meaning in the face of declining opportunity, more youths became involved in gangs, and with the introduction of crack cocaine, gangs turned to this volatile end of the drug market, where violence is the only available mode of protection and social control. Also rates of crime are much higher in the South than anywhere else.

You also have to look at untreated mental illness as part of the problem too.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

Well, people tend to think of small town life as stable and close, the opposite of big cities. Yet change has come to many parts of the United States. I think that dense social ties have given way to more impersonal relations in rural areas and small towns. We have to understand that demographic change brought on by migration and population turnover have disrupted tight social ties between families and neighbors. I do think that a lot of the violence among youths is indeed concentrated in poor areas of our nation's inner cities. You also have to understand that during the 1970s joblessness increased in inner city communities because of the outmigration of the middle class and the movement of blue collar jobs away from U.S. cities. Economic and social stress contributed to the breakdown of families and other community supports for children and adolescents. In search of support, identity, and meaning in the face of declining opportunity, more youths became involved in gangs, and with the introduction of crack cocaine, gangs turned to this volatile end of the drug market, where violence is the only available mode of protection and social control. Also rates of crime are much higher in the South than anywhere else.

I assume that you're speaking generally when you say "you/we also have to understand." None of what is being typed in this thread is a revelation. So it seems like we're typing in circles and repeating ourselves most of the time.

It doesn't change the fact that all violence is not created or responded to equally in this society. People have an image of the "types of people" that are violent and criminal and the "types of places" that this occurs--even if their assessment is inaccurate. It is this perception that feeds the fears and opinions. Not accurate information. Just another reminder for some people who are on the "what's new with our kids...why are they so violent all of a sudden" kick.

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

You also have to look at untreated mental illness as part of the problem too.

Everything's "part of the problem." But a moderate % of adults (and a smaller % of youth) have some degree of mental illness. Most of these people are functional so they have reasoning and self-regulation capacity. They won't end up criminal or deviant on most regards. So to that end, untreated mental illness has not been found to have a huge impact unless the person is unable to function without medication or counseling services.

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

I assume that you're speaking generally when you say "you/we also have to understand." None of what is being typed in this thread is a revelation. So it seems like we're typing in circles and repeating ourselves most of the time.

It doesn't change the fact that all violence is not created or responded to equally in this society. People have an image of the "types of people" that are violent and criminal and the "types of places" that this occurs--even if their assessment is inaccurate. It is this perception that feeds the fears and opinions. Not accurate information. Just another reminder for some people who are on the "what's new with our kids...why are they so violent all of a sudden" kick.



Everything's "part of the problem." But a moderate % of adults (and a smaller % of youth) have some degree of mental illness. Most of these people are functional so they have reasoning and self-regulation capacity. They won't end up criminal or deviant on most regards. So to that end, untreated mental illness has not been found to have a huge impact unless the person is unable to function without medication or counseling services.

This is good. I agree, we are going in circles, but you and a few other members are the only intelligent members who are posting on this thread who can have an intelligent chatting session without calling people names. What you said is really good, but I want to elaborate on the mental illness part.

To me, it just seems like people aren't diagnosed until after something harmful happens. In fact few shooters are diagnosed with mental illnesses before their crimes. Yet many are discovered afterward to be mentally ill. Depression and schizophrenia or one of it's variants are particularly common. Only a small minority of these children are under treatment. A lot of us might expect adults who routinely deal with adolecents, such as school personnel, to be able to spot mental illness. I think it turns out to be exceptionally difficult, largely because problems like clinical depression or schizophrenia may be in their early stages, lacking some of the symptoms that manifest themselves later in life. At the onset of the disease, kids are often aware of how different they are from others and, feeling the stigma that comes with this territory, work hard to conceal their troubles. I think mental illness can be a problem if untreated, but given the number of adolescents who are depressed and suicidal, like you said, I totally don't think mental illness can be or should be viewed as a straightforward predictor of school shootings. A lot of times it's these children that are bullied or teased because they may be nerdy or different. Sometimes these kids are sick and no one knows about it, so they snap. Most of the shootings that occured were by kids who were outcasts, teased or just not accepted by their peers.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

This is good. I agree, we are going in circles, but you and a few other members are the only intelligent members who are posting on this thread who can have an intelligent chatting session without calling people names. What you said is really good, but I want to elaborate on the mental illness part.

I was avoiding this thread like the plague but I won't get into why.

I loooove to call names. You just don't deserve it.

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

To me, it just seems like people aren't diagnosed until after something harmful happens. In fact few shooters are diagnosed with mental illnesses before their crimes. Yet many are discovered afterward to be mentally ill. Depression and schizophrenia or one of it's variants are particularly common. Only a small minority of these children are under treatment. A lot of us might expect adults who routinely deal with adolecents, such as school personnel, to be able to spot mental illness. I think it turns out to be exceptionally difficult, largely because problems like clinical depression or schizophrenia may be in their early stages, lacking some of the symptoms that manifest themselves later in life. At the onset of the disease, kids are often aware of how different they are from others and, feeling the stigma that comes with this territory, work hard to conceal their troubles. I think mental illness can be a problem if untreated, but given the number of adolescents who are depressed and suicidal, like you said, I totally don't think mental illness can be or should be viewed as a straightforward predictor of school shootings. A lot of times it's these children that are bullied or teased because they may be nerdy or different. Sometimes these kids are sick and no one knows about it, so they snap. Most of the shootings that occured were by kids who were outcasts, teased or just not accepted by their peers.

You're doing it again. If this is a discussion of violence as a general concept, we have to get away from just thinking about school shooters and their mental health issues. That's the whole "this and this and this and then THAT" approach that lacks focus. You need to assess the validity of mental and emotional health as a correlate for overall violence in children, including perceived increases in violence.

I understand why your mind is going where it is because you have a specific type of violence that is on your mind and peaks your interest. It could also have to do with the image of violence that people are most exposed to. Kind of like that old polygamy thread that I resurrected only to misplace the discussion by discussing the FLDS compound instead of really discussing polygamy.

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

I was avoiding this thread like the plague but I won't get into why.

Why don't you want to get into the reason why?

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

Why don't you want to get into the reason why?

Because that's another topic and more typing.

[Tippiechick]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

Well, people tend to think of small town life as stable and close, the opposite of big cities. Yet change has come to many parts of the United States. I think that dense social ties have given way to more impersonal relations in rural areas and small towns. We have to understand that demographic change brought on by migration and population turnover have disrupted tight social ties between families and neighbors. Also rates of crime are much higher in the South than anywhere else.

Show me some hard evidence... BTW, are you from a small, rural town? THINKing that something is true may or may not make it so.

Example -- I think you are a stupid bitch. I think you don't know what you are talking about. I think you are so self-righteous that I want to shove Kum-ba-yah down your throat.

I may or may not have evidence to back this up. But, saying so doesn't prove my theory...


Wait... I come from a small, rural town where increasing migration has eroded the small-town ties and is sending us all to hell in a handbasket, right? You are talking out of your ASS.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by Tippiechick

Example -- I think you are a stupid bitch. I think you don't know what you are talking about. I think you are so self-righteous that I want to shove Kum-ba-yah down your throat.

Seriously, though? If you needed to, you could've clowned her without going the "stupid bitch" route. Especially when your critique of her position is inaccurate.

Originally Posted by Tippiechick

Wait... I come from a small, rural town where increasing migration has eroded the small-town ties and is sending us all to hell in a handbasket, right? You are talking out of your ASS.

Actually, she isn't talking out of her ass in that post and most of her posts. She's just making a laundry list, which brings too many factors into the equation and makes it difficult to assess the relative strength of the factors in explaining the "violence problem."

What she said about migration and the eroding of traditional ties is accurate and supported by research. It is the basis for a lot of theory and research. It doesn't mean it applies in 100% of the cases or relates to everyone's experiences, but as I said before in this thread no one cares about everyone's experiences and exceptions to the research-supported "rules."

The issue of migration and ties is the same explanation that is attached to the advancement of societies, in general, and can be used to compare rural vs urban, different levels of urbanity, regional variations, and different nations. For instance, we compare economically developed nations with urbanization like the U.S. and Japan. We find that Japan has a lower crime rate than the U.S., even with high urbanization and development. One explanation for this is Japan's strong family ties and an ability to maintain solidarity and awareness of those around you (attempt to maintain informal social control mechanisms even with increasing residential mobility) even if society is developing. If you can understand that then you can understand the rural vs. urban distinction that applies in a general sense.

[DSTCHAOS]

For those of you who are entertained by further reading on the issue of community ties and migration and the disruption of societal ties. These aren't the most recent but these are some of the most prolific and cited sources:

Tittle and Paternoster 1988 "Geographic Mobility and Criminal Behavior." Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. 25, 301-343.

Clinard and Abbott. 1973. Crime in Developing Countries: A Comparative Perspective. New York.

Clifford 1976. Crime Control in Japan. Lexington: MA: D.C. Health.

Adler, Freda. 1983. Nations Not Obsessed with Crime. Littleton, CO: Rothman.

[Tippiechick]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Seriously, though? If you needed to, you could've clowned her without going the "stupid bitch" route. Especially when your critique of her position is inaccurate.
Actually, she isn't talking out of her ass in that post and most of her posts. She's just making a laundry list, which brings too many factors into the equation and makes it difficult to assess the relative strength of the factors in explaining the "violence problem."
What she said about migration and the eroding of traditional ties is accurate and supported by research. It is the basis for a lot of theory and research. It doesn't mean it applies in 100% of the cases or relates to everyone's experiences, but as I said before in this thread no one cares about everyone's experiences and exceptions to the research-supported "rules."

The issue of migration and ties is the same explanation that is attached to the advancement of societies, in general, and can be used to compare rural vs urban, different levels of urbanity, regional variations, and different nations. For instance, we compare economically developed nations with urbanization like the U.S. and Japan. We find that Japan has a lower crime rate than the U.S., even with high urbanization and development. One explanation for this is Japan's strong family ties and an ability to maintain solidarity and awareness of those around you (attempt to maintain informal social control mechanisms even with increasing residential mobility) even if society is developing. If you can understand that then you can understand the rural vs. urban distinction that applies in a general sense.

My point was that I wanted evidence. And, from what I have seen, there has yet to be any provided by CG. And, I believe that Southern small town ties are as strong as they have ever been. Unless of course, she would provide me with the same information my post was asking for.

Unless someone backs up their point with hard evidence, I will conclude that they are talking out of their ass. I think, perhaps, you missed the sarcasm in my post. The point was that I can say anything as long as I don't give info to back it up. It was an example... I do think she has overstepped her boundaries on rural Southern towns. That doesn't come from any research. Just almost 3 decades years of living in small rural towns in two Southern states. But, you see, I can admit that. I just want her to back her point up. I think she has talked in circles rather than backing up her position of small, rural towns in the South. If it's all just anecdotal evidence like my statement above, fine. But, I would like an explanation.

But, so far, I cannot find where she has given any kind of proof. From what I have seen, she wants to open a discussion, make points, and back away without defending them.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by Tippiechick

And, I believe that small town ties are as strong as they have ever been. Unless of course, you would provide me with the same information my post was asking for.

You can believe that but it doesn't make it true in a general sense.

Feel free to look up and read the sources that I provided regarding the foundation for what cheerfulgreek was referencing. That's the extent of the info that I'll provide for a GC thread on this topic.

[Tippiechick]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

You can believe that but it doesn't make it true in a general sense.

Feel free to look up and read the sources that I provided regarding the foundation for what cheerfulgreek was referencing. That's the extent of the info that I'll provide for a GC thread on this topic.

While you were typing, I was editing. See, that was my whole point. That without evidence it doesn't make anything so. Perhaps it was a bad way of phrasing it. But, I was trying to get her attention.

I didn't see the above references until I posted. That's why I edited.

I actually think we are on the same page. I just think sometimes I don't know how to put things in a way that is less aggressive...

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by Tippiechick

Unless someone backs up their point with hard evidence, I will conclude that they are talking out of their ass. I think, perhaps, you missed the sarcasm in my post. If I wanted to call someone a stupid bitch, I would just say it.

You read more like you're talking out of your ass than cheerfulgreek reads, though. You don't know that the information is wrong. You just think that it's wrong, mostly because you disagree based on your personal experience. Not based on contrary research.

I'm good at capturing sarcasm when it is effectively conveyed. It seemed like you were trying to find a cutesy way of calling her a stupid bitch who doesn't know what she's talking about. If that's not what you were doing...okay....

[33girl]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

If you were smart, you would know social history left its traces in the personalities of contemporary southerners! To demonstrate my point, there were experiments that were done that tested responses to insults and found that southern students were more likely to be angered and less likely to be amused. Southern students showed a sharper physical reaction to these stresses, with higher levels of cortisol and testosterone. Finally, southerners tended to be more aggressive, less deferential, and more domineering and were more likely to express concern that someone who had observed the insult would perceive them as less masculine. And I could give two shits what you think about me ASSHOLE!!!!!!

Are you Southern?