Mental Health:The Canary in the Coal Mine

[Riggerjack]

riggerjack I suspect you're correct. Perhaps we should encourage more combat sports, boxing, wrestling etc. Create a disciplined, structured environment for young men to vent out their natural aggression, feel more empowered.

Sure. Bring back traditional male social building blocks. Overall, I think this would be a good thing. But I expect plenty of resistance from everyone currently having a stake in our current system.

But more to the point, I don't think it would help much with school shootings. These are the guys who started out getting picked last for the kickball team. More sports culture won't change their status differential. We need to flatten the social inequality.

I propose that what we need, is to stop making school a popularity contest. If that isn't clear, please read Paul Graham's http://paulgraham.com/nerds.html why nerds are unpopular.

Why do we group children by age, rather than ability? Why do we extend adolescence, without exceptions?
What do we expect of someone who excels at the standards we supply, after being chained to a class full of disinterested, abusive peers? If it's "the best years of his life" why would we be surprised by a negative reaction to a negative situation?

As BRUTE put it, school is prison. Why are we surprised that the inmates shank each other? Maybe schools should be less like prison, or maybe we should be pulling specific students into some kind of work release program.

[daylen]

Maybe it will all re-calibrate when the education bubble pops. The policies are too stiff at the moment.

[chenda]

@riggerjack - the article hits the nail on the head. 20 years on from secondary school I could still rank every girl in my year in the social pecking order. It is exactly like a prison system. And many of them didn't need to be there after 14 or so. Why are we teaching Shakespeare to boys who will be plumbers ? Nothing wrong with Shakespeare or plumbing, but they all knew the education was a waste of time and they were just disruptive to everyone else. Girls who were having sex at 14 were been taught with girls who were still emotionally children. It was a brutal, toxic environment and this was 90s without social media. It must be even worse now.

[Riggerjack]

Honestly, I don't object to teaching Shakespeare to anyone, even turd herders. I object to how we do it.

We teach elementary school by age. To advance, you either move at the pace of the slowest learner, and move with the group, or skip a grade. Skipping a grade comes at a high cost. Now, you are the youngest, newest member of your new class. Now, maybe you were awesome at the 3 R's, but you are at least a year behind, socially. Think back, I'm sure we all saw, or were, examples.

But what if we grouped kids by ability, rather than age? Imagine teaching a class of algebra students that ranged from 10-18, but had similar abilities in math. Harder, or easier than teaching kids the same age but varying abilities? More, or less focus?

Imagine a diploma that certifies you have passed minimal skills tests, rather than a number of hours bored out of your mind. That each student gets tested each year, and is required to put in more hours in any subject they are behind in. And all the rest of the hours were free for the student to choose their schedules. Make school more like University.

But also imagine you are in a math class with the backup center on the football team. He's insecure in his position on the team, and in the classroom, and makes up for this by bullying. Imagine he is targeting you.

In that situation, you can escape by switching a math class. You don't need to excel at every subject, you just need to get more serious about math. Imagine, that instead of 6-7 different classes, each with a travel time, a settling time, a bit of lecture time, followed by homework assignment time, you could choose your schedule, and ONLY the basic courses are a hour long. Make the advanced and remedial courses 2-4 hours long.

No more review time. At least half my time in school was reviewing what had already been "taught". Sometimes entire classes covered exactly the same material. I took a chemistry class as a junior that covered less chemistry than my freshman physical sciences class.

This doesn't just address the academic challenges our schools face, it makes escaping bullies easier. You have a bully in math class, you can deal with it, or go take an art class, then next semester take 2-4 hours of math, and spend the rest of school ahead of the bully in math.

It's important to learn to deal with interpersonal adversity. But it shouldn't be necessary to deal with it all day, every day, until you snap. We definitely have a snapping problem. It would be nice to deal with it as a real problem, rather than getting distracted pushing "fixes" that don't fix anything.

I'm not a teacher, nor a parent. I'm not up on modern teaching theory or practice. This is just a simple, off the top of my head, example of a possible solution.

[daylen]

@RiggerJack I like the general idea. Though, if we are going to rework the system, why not just let kids learn at their own pace at home on the internet? There could be weekly/monthly/yearly test at a physical location to ensure competence. Socialization could be enforced by requiring participation in activities or clubs. Students with special needs could arrange for a personal tutor provided by the system. Adversity could be presented in the form of periodic competitions (science fair, entrepreneurship fair, debate, sports, and so forth).

[Riggerjack]

Well, learning by net would work for the folks around here, but for the gen pop? We spend 13 years teaching kids just the basics, for a reason. Some folks need the reviews, and the reviews of the reviews.

We all know the kid who rocked art, but couldn't do math. Or did great at math, but sucked at PE. My dream school would allow for the differing speeds of skills aquisition between individual kids, and the difference in subjects.

Adding flexibility and grouping students by ability are good ideas, but having big variance in ages of students means big variance in social skills within each class.

I imagine kids would still set up all the same social tranches they do today. But by making easy escape paths, we lose some of the inescapable abuse we currently put kids through. By causing a class to be grouped by ability, the same students will not be in so many classes together. Which then interrupts the reinforcement of status from a different class.

Let me try to explain that better.

If you are an average student today, you will share classes with a bunch of other average students. You go to algebra, with Tim, Cassandra, and Todd. You go to English with Tim and Cassandra. You go to PE with Tim and Todd. You share all these classes because you are all the same age. If Tim and Todd are bullies, algebra and English suck, but nothing like PE.

But if you group by ability, you would take algebra with them all, but then Cassandra goes into an advanced poetry class, and Tim and Todd can go work on their own strengths and weaknesses. Rather than dealing with the same people, and their games and baggage day in, and day out, for 13 years, you will be in classes with half the school at one time or another. You will be in classes relevant to your skill level. And the older kids, will be more interested in getting their grades, because ability is how you get out, rather than time served. There would be prestige to being the young one in your class.

And the messed up abuse we see today, we would still see, I'm sure, we are talking about human students, after all. But the social hierarchy would be less developed. A flatter distribution.

And why wouldn't we want a system that taught better and dealt out less abuse? Though, it has never been tried, so I'm just speculating. I'm sure I glossed over some very important points. But given where we are, and what we are dealing with, this kind of thing may actually help.

Or maybe, it's just my version of just "doing SOMETHING."

[chenda]

@Daylen See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_of_the_Air

[PhilosopherSarah]

This is a really interesting discussion. I do not think our society has very good ways of developing positive forms of masculinity. There is a good, recent documentary on mental illness: https://crazywisefilm.com/watch-the-film/ I watched it recently and got to meet the filmmaker, who worked closely with Adam (the "star" of the film). The filmmaker seemed reluctant, however, to address the social justice issues. I see little girls developing "OCD" and "depression" and eating disorder after being raped by family members. I see little boys developing violent tendencies after being beaten by their fathers. The institution of the family seems to be interacting with the culture in really noxious ways to produce mental illness. I hate even calling it "mental illness", when really it is the damage done to the soul through failing families and cultural toxicity (not to mention environmental toxins!).

The film really hits home this idea that we are not meeting basic human spiritual needs. It explores how other cultures do that.

As for "community", I have noticed that a lot of mentally unhealthy people have what looks like a lot of community. But really, what they have are "networks". They have a bunch of fake friends that they hang around with and have fun with. That is not really community. Community runs deeper. One thing you might worry about with technology is that it encourages "networks", rather than "communities". Community bonds run a lot deeper than network bonds. I think Jason's point is right -- when anybody can be anywhere else, they do not invest in their local communities. Most people do not even know what is missing. I never would have realized what was missing in my life had I not lived in a small, rural town (my job relocated me there!). I had grown up in a surging suburban environment, and I literally did not even know what "community" is. I fear that people will not seek out community, because they do not even know what it is. They mistake a network for a community. You cannot really know what a community is until you live in one, and so many of our young people are being born into networks, not communities.

[BRUTE]

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... edit#gid=0

The continually updated US mass-shooting googlesheet for your bookmarking edification. It does indeed contain very few (3 out of 98) women.

it also contains 16 school shootings over 36 years. doesn't really seem to be a thing, does it.

[Riggerjack]

Plus, community in its ultimate sense, is not just shared experience, but the ability to discipline and impose accountability. And, dare I say it, a sense of shame if necessary. That is no longer possible in most of America due to the ability to move and the amount of competition between denominations. And the community that is found, is not a real community in a true sense. The only place I have experienced is it in rural communities where options are limited as the greatest threat to community and to a feeling of belonging is in fact, options. When you and everyone else in the room can be anywhere else at anytime, there is limited impetus to personally invest.

Every fiber of my being cries out that this isn't right. That Freedom, and Independence are unquestionably good. But I think you are right. I've touched on this a bit in talking about rural life vs city life. That unlimited options of city living leaves people with choices closer to their preferences, yet lacking in satisfaction.

I had grown up in a surging suburban environment, and I literally did not even know what "community" is. I fear that people will not seek out community, because they do not even know what it is. They mistake a network for a community. You cannot really know what a community is until you live in one, and so many of our young people are being born into networks, not communities.

I agree with this.

I do not think our society has very good ways of developing positive forms of masculinity.

And this, though I was hesitant to mention it. I know when I was a kid, lack of male role models was an issue as I was figuring out what being a man was. But I was always a bit contemptuous of the role mode concept as a kid (such a beautiful and unique butterfly was I). So I don't know if I would have learned had the lessons been available.

As a nation of single parents, I don't know how kids are supposed to learn the passive life skills. How do you learn to handle conflict in a relationship from parents who didn't know? How does a son learn to project masculinity from a father who doesn't know, or isn't there? I have plenty of similar questions.

But this is no appeal to "return to family values". This is me saying that we made choices as a society, to embrace Freedom and Independence, and reject Shame and Interdependence. That I think those changes are to the good. But also they came with costs, and I don't think we knew, or know, what those costs are, let alone whether the costs outweigh the benefits.

And that's enough agreement from me. I'm off to find something to disagree with.

[George the original one]

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... edit#gid=0

The continually updated US mass-shooting googlesheet for your bookmarking edification. It does indeed contain very few (3 out of 98) women.

it also contains 16 school shootings over 36 years. doesn't really seem to be a thing, does it.

It's not a big thing, but they are accelerating in frequency. Used to be a decade between mass school shootings and now it's just a few months.

[IlliniDave]

Our culture seems increasingly ideologically aggressive. One example is that I can hardly stomach watching/listening to "news". There are a few protected classes, but for the most part it is about putting down anyone who doesn't ascribe to the favored playbook. They aren't even subtle about it, nor are they particularly concerned with accuracy. It has spread beyond news into entertainment, mainstream politics, and at least towards if not into the education system.

There is a culture of cultivating victims and as alluded to above, we all have the remnants of a reptile brain (I'm not an evolutionary biologist, "reptile brain" is a figure of speech) dating back to when being a victim meant being lunch for some other creature. That reptile part of the brain will resist victimhood with all power at its disposal. When I was a kid (1970s) there was a bias towards empowerment in what/how we were taught. Now that attitude is considered too callus and even racist/sexist/etc. So the way we structure and cultivate our communities is divisive, and sort of the antithesis of community.

The reptile corner of the brain was also evolved to live in much smaller social groups than the current population/demographic trends promote. Combining people who feel alienated with social overstimulation (add in social media and cell phones here) I think fuels antisocial behavior. With more population more people occupy the far tails of the distribution and suddenly there are role models/communities and even playbooks for the extremes.

Where it's all headed and how to fix it are beyond me.

[BRUTE]

It's not a big thing, but they are accelerating in frequency. Used to be a decade between mass school shootings and now it's just a few months.

except that's not true:
http://news.northeastern.edu/2018/02/sc ... cher-says/

[George the original one]

It's not a big thing, but they are accelerating in frequency. Used to be a decade between mass school shootings and now it's just a few months.

except that's not true:
http://news.northeastern.edu/2018/02/sc ... cher-says/

With all due respect, BRUTE, that article has nothing to do with how school mass shootings are accelerating in frequency. Yes, a child is still safer at school than many other places (particularly in a car!). Yes, a school mass shooting is still highly unlikely at any school. Unfortunately, though, school mass shootings are accelerating in frequency. Here's the chart of school mass shootings laid out in a histogram by decade:


And the (poorly formatted) data behind the chart:
School Location Date Killed Wounded Total Casualties
Plain Dealing High School Plain Dealing, LA 26. March 1893 4 1 5
school exhibition near Poca Charleston, WV 13. December 1898 6 1 7
South Pasadena Junior High School Pasadena, CA 6. May 1940 5 2 7
University of Texas, Austin Austin, TX 1. August 1966 18 30 48
Rose-Mar College of Beauty Mesa, AZ 12. November 1966 5 2 7
California State University at Fullerton Fullerton, CA 12. July 1976 7 2 9
Montifiori School Chicago, IL 22. September 1988 5 2 7
Cleveland Elementary School Stockton, CA 17. January 1989 6 29 35
University of Iowa Iowa City, IA 1. November 1991 6 1 7
Lindhurst High School Olivehurst, CA 1. May 1992 4 10 14
Westside Middle School Jonesboro, AR 24. March 1998 5 10 15
Thurston High School Springfield, OR 21. May 1998 4 25 29
Columbine High School Littleton, CO 20. April 1999 15 24 39
Red Lake Indian Reservation Red Lake, MN 21. March 2005 10 5 15
West Nickel Mines Amish School Nickel Mines, PA 2. October 2006 6 6 12
Virginia Tech Blacksburg, VA 16. April 2007 33 23 56
Northern Illinois University DeKalb, IL 14. February 2008 6 21 27
Oikos University Oakland, CA 2. April 2012 7 3 10
Sandy Hook Elementary School Newton, CT 14. December 2012 28 2 30
Santa Monica College Santa Monica, CA 7. June 2013 6 3 9
Marysville-Pilchuck High School Marysville, WA 24. October 2014 5 1 6
Umpqua Community College Roseburg, OR 1. October 2015 10 7 17
Rancho Tehama Elementary School Rancho Tehama, CA 14. November 2017 6 10 16
Marjory Stoneman-Douglas High School Parkland, FL 14. February 2018 17 15 32

[Riggerjack]

@ George TOO,
Interesting chart. It looks like shooting shootings are going up in reference to time, or down when compared to population, or GDP, or oil consumption, or global temperature, or whatever measure you prefer. Look at those numbers, 21 school shootings since the fifties. That's a lot, and it's way more than I would prefer.

But by any measure, one is way less likely to die in a school shooting than to be killed by a lawn mower. Not slightly more, not so close it depends on how you measure, but way more likely to die by lawn mower.

More frightening still, every school has at least one lawn mower, already on the premises, poised to strike.

[slowtraveler]

Is there a way to keep the benefits of technology and efficiency of cities without losing the intimacy of close rural communities where everyone knows everyone?

@GTOO
Should we outlaw sugar or cars? They kill more people in 1 day than mass murders kill in decades.

Child birth seems to kill a lot of people too. Should we outlaw child birth now?

[Riggerjack]

Is there a way to keep the... and efficiency of cities

What are those, again?

[slowtraveler]

@RiggerJack
Economy of scale and proximity. Good food, jobs, entertainment, pretty girls, etc are all close and available in large volumes.

Economy of scale example:
It costs less steel per person to provide plumbing or roof to provide shelter in a large apartment complex than in a single family home.

Proximity example:
Walking wasn't possible for me in rural or suburban regions except for small errands. Now, living in central apartment complexes, markets for food are close. I walk to Tesco for eggs, rice, chocolate, and cooling oil and the street market for chili, garlic, and other plants. I can take a train, bus, or truck for a fraction of a dollar to get into the party side of town or to get to the warehouse sized supermarket.

Also, there's no shortage of offers. I saw a truck, asked the rate to get home, about $16, I almost laughed my a** off. I walked 5 minutes and took one home for about $.30.

A book called, The Green City, helped me change my perspective to see cities as more green than most sustainable villages. Public transportation is awesome now but I'm not in America anymore. I wouldn't recommend SF buses to anyone. They dont compare to the ones in Asia.

@gtoo
Brute cited his evidence, can you provide a link to your chart?

[George the original one]

@gtoo
Brute cited his evidence, can you provide a link to your chart?

You mean you didn't read the list of shootings below my chart? Really, these school mass shootings are all well documented and you can find multiple sources... it isn't hard to put together a chart just like I did.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... edit#gid=0
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics ... a6df691f20
http://www.heraldnet.com/news/the-histo ... n-the-u-s/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... ted_States

[George the original one]

@ George TOO,
Interesting chart. It looks like shooting shootings are going up in reference to time, or down when compared to population, or GDP, or oil consumption, or global temperature, or whatever measure you prefer. Look at those numbers, 21 school shootings since the fifties. That's a lot, and it's way more than I would prefer.

US population in 1960 was 179,323,175 and increased to 308,745,538 in 2010, a 72% increase. School mass shootings have increased by 300% in the same timeframe.