Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs

[arnisandyz]

This is a great read.

http://forums.1911forum.com/showthread.php?t=98498

 

[tshadowchaser]

An excellent thought provoking article

 

[Tgace]

The Sheepdogs are always "heros", and you hear all the "you guys dont get paid enough for..." sentiment. Until budget/contract time comes around. Then on the subject of raises and salaries is "Zeros for Heros".

Sorry for the rant can you tell its contract negotiation time?

 

[Tgace]

http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/books/tbs/media_articles/2002_09_03_times.html

Adjudication by an armed authority appears to be the most effective general violence-reduction technique yet invented. Though we debate whether tweaks in criminal policy, such as executing murderers versus locking them up for life, can reduce violence by a few percentage points, there can be no debate on the massive effects of having a criminal justice system as opposed to living in anarchy. The shockingly high homicide rates of pre-state societies, with 10 to 60 per cent of the men dying at the hands of other men, provide one kind of evidence. Another is the emergence of a violent culture of honour in just about any corner of the world that is beyond the reach of the law. The inverse is true as well. When law enforcement vanishes, all manner of violence breaks out: looting, settling old scores, ethnic cleansing and petty warfare among gangs, warlords and mafias. This was obvious in the remnants of Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union and parts of Africa in the 1990s.

 

[Zepp]

Nice read. There is one line in the article I can't agree with:

If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen, a sheep.

Every human being has the capacity for violence. Healthy, productive citizens are able to control their violent impulses and desires. (Sorry if I'm being nitpicky.)

 

[Eldritch Knight]

I would say that it has more to do with the fact that society has conditioned them against being violent. The "violence is only for bad people" mentality. Don't you know some people who would rather submit or retreat in the face of violence, either unconsciously or consciously, rather than fight back? Fight Club has a great scene explaining this.

 

[arnisandyz]

Every human being has the capacity for violence. Healthy, productive citizens are able to control their violent impulses and desires. (Sorry if I'm being nitpicky.)[/QUOTE]

The author later on does say that he is presenting extremes to make a case (provide an anology) and that most people are rarely just a sheep or just a sheepdog but fall somewhere inbetween.

"This business of being a sheep or a sheep dog is not a yes-no dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other. Most of us live somewhere in between."

 

[TonyM.]

That was some of the worst unmitigated rationalized BS propaganda justifying turning America into a police state I've ever read.

 

[Zepp]

That was some of the worst unmitigated rationalized BS propaganda justifying turning America into a police state I've ever read.

I don't know what article you were reading. All I saw was a call for better appreciation of soldiers and peace officers.

 

[TonyM.]

Exactly. What we need are more responsible citizens and less armed thugs.

 

[Tgace]

What do you mean by that statement?

 

[sgtmac_46]

What do you mean by that statement?

He means he's offended by the fact that not everyone else on this planet is like him, and thinks he can take care of himself, and he balks at the idea that police should protect society or that he should be grateful for that protection. This type of attitude is typical of either Rams or Wolves, more likely Rams. (Rams are like sheep, but capable of protecting themselves, they resent sheep dogs for their interference, as Rammy behavior typically attracts sheep dog attention. Further, Rams get offended when called Rams). Or he may simply be concerned with expanded police powers. Who can be certain.

Amen to the comment about salaries and benefits. Everyone wants a hero, but on a budget. Miracles cost extra.

In reference to someone's statement that everyone has a capacity for violence, that is a truism that isn't as true as it seems. The statement "Everyone has a capacity for violence" may be true at first glance, but it doesn't deal with the question. Everyone does not have an EQUAL capacity for violence, and some people have such a negligible capacity for violence, that it makes the point moot. We can see that the women who Ted Bundy victimized had no where near the capacity for violence that Ted himself dead. Women, by virtue of genetics, conditioning, and other factors, as a rule have no where near the capacity for violence as men do. That doesn't mean that some women don't have a greater capacity for violence than some men, it does mean that the baseline is nowhere near where the baseline for men is. The most violent women are no where near as violent as the most violent men. There was no Ghengis Jane.

As far as sheep dogs, sheep, and wolves, it is a useful analogy of the roles violence takes in our society. The belief that all violence is wrong, is not applicable in the world we live in. The fact that violence occurs, with or without our consent, means that we have to be ready to meet violence with preparedness. Since all men aren't equally ready to meet violence when it comes, a select few of us volunteer to meet violence for them. BUT, it is vitally important for those of us who take that responsibility to remember that the vast majority of people out there are the sheep we serve, and not the wolves. The sheep are to be treated as our masters, like it or not. We are required to nip them back in to the flock from time to time (such as when they are speeding), but we should still treat them with deferance and respect. The wolves, however, deserve our undying enmity. I tell all my new officers to learn to understand the difference between the sheep (even the Rams) and the wolves, and to learn what master we serve.

(The preceeding has been pure satire, any resemblance to real people, living or dead, is merely intentional. No animals were harmed in the production of this post.)

<Insert comment about blanket statements or other retorts here>

 

[KenpoTex]

First of all, to all the LEOs and Military personell, THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.

Second, you guys don't make enough, or get the appreciation and respect that you deserve (one of the reasons I still do private security is that I make about what the LEOs around here do with a fraction of the hassles).
Like the article said, no one wants a cop around. In fact when most people see a police car drive by or when they talk about the police, it's always "stupid cops" or "can't they find something better to do than harass people." But when the excrement hits the fan it turns into "where the hell is a cop when you need one." suddenly the police are their bestest buddies.

Another point. While the article specifially mentions police and military as the "sheepdogs," I don't think this status is limited to those two groups. To me a sheepdog is anyone who will say "I refuse to be a victim or allow people I care about to be victimized by the scum of society." As a result, this definition includes those who obtain a CHL and some firearms training, or study self-defense so that they can protect themselves and their loved ones. Rather than sitting back and expecting someone else to be there to save their butts they are ready, willing, and able to do it themselves if it becomes necessary to do so.

As far as the capacity for violence thing...I think sgtmac_46 summed it up very well. We all have it but not to the same extent. In my mind, a high capacity towards violence is not always a bad thing. The wolves are the ones that manifest their violent tendencies in the wrong way-to victimize the sheep. The sheepdogs are those that manifest their violent tendencies to deal with the wolves. When discussing self-defense we spend a lot of time talking about mindset. To me, that elusive "self-defense mindset" is nothing more than being able to instantly "tap into" that violence and aggression and direct it toward the threat.

Just my $0.02

Woof

 

[TonyM.]

That wasn't what I meant at all so pound sand.

 

[rmcrobertson]

1. The "sheepdog/sheep," bit is a direct ripoff of Robert Heinlein's "Starship Troopers." Which helps suggest exactly why it looks an apologia for something very like a Fascist state.

2. As always, the chest-thumping is accompanied by a remark about the status of women. What this sugests is that a great deal of all this "necessary violence," really reflects a self-confirming, self-justifying prophecy.

3. Yes, I do know people who would rather retreat than take violent action. They're called, "martial artists." It is possible that if our society was a little less violently repressive, we'd have a little less violence.

4. We have to have cops, unfortunately. It's also unfortunate that in cities like LA, the good citizens are too damn cheap to pay for the police force they actually need.

5. I don't understand why it isn't enough for cops to understand that they perform an absolutely-essential social function, often rather heroically, always under a great deal of stress that lots of the good folk wouldn't endure for five minutes, and just skip the sheepdog jazz.

6. Funny. I'd thought we were human beings, not dogs.

 

[eyebeams]

It's pretty much unsubstantiated, vaguely propagandistic garbage.

Grossman is not really a significant player in the social sciences because the vast majority of his insights are supported by anedotal or unverifiable evidence.

Pinker is another case: a psychologist who's decided to take upon himself the diagnosis of how the human psyche affects history, despite lacking that analytical training to actually see what societies do. For example, his correlation between the "feminist" US and increased violence is easily refuted by noting the general downward trend in violent crime since the late 1960s.

More false correlations abound. The primary difference between the US and the more violent societies mentioned is wealth and degrees of social inequality. Less violent countries have more money and less social inequality. More violent countries have less money and more social inequality.

What is particularly stupid in Pinker's model is his utter failure to account for two societies with strong military ethoi and pervasive law enforcement structures:

Y'know: the Third Reich and the USSR under Stalin (and other times, too).

Real social research, has however, shown that the relationship between violence and law enforcement is neither one-sided nor a simplistic panacaea. _Violent Men_(http://www.ncpc.org/ncpc/ncpc/?pg=2088-1790), Hans Toch's study of male violence, concluded that many violent situations involving law enforcement officers were instigated by the officers, and not civillian participants. Both police and civillian participants in a violent encounter characterized themselves as victims and reactors, rather than actors. The idea that the police prevent violence in wealthy societies is not as convencing as the idea that police regulate violence. Studies across different ethnic groups show that violence is "regulated" by law enforcement to favour privileged groups. The chief problem of democratic societies vis a vis the police is how to, in fact, moderate police power. They are only "sheepdogs" because they are broken to the leash by civillian authority.

 

[Tgace]

Oh boy, another one.....:shrug:


Gentle readers, the following is a quote from Theodore Roosevelt:

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face in marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat. Shame on the man of cultivated taste who permits refinement to develop into fastidiousness that unfits him for doing the rough work of a workaday world. Among the free peoples who govern themselves there is but a small field of usefulness open for the men of cloistered life who shrink from contact with their fellows. Still less room is there for those who deride of slight what is done by those who actually bear the brunt of the day; nor yet for those others who always profess that they would like to take action, if only the conditions of life were not exactly what they actually are. The man who does nothing cuts the same sordid figure in the pages of history, whether he be a cynic, or fop, or voluptuary. There is little use for the being whose tepid soul knows nothing of great and generous emotion, of the high pride, the stern belief, the lofty enthusiasm, of the men who quell the storm and ride the thunder. Well for these men if they succeed; well also, though not so well, if they fail, given only that they have nobly ventured, and have put forth all their heart and strength. It is war-worn Hotspur, spent with hard fighting, he of the many errors and valiant end, over whose memory we love to linger, not over the memory of the young lord who "but for the vile guns would have been a valiant soldier."​

 

[eyebeams]

Actually, it depends what "valiant" people do. I feel pretty free to criticise "men of action" who bomb noncombatants, torture in the service of a state or ideology and serve as tools in repressing human liberty.

This is, of course, what "valiant" people have done, almost without exception throughout history whenever they have not been restrained by regulation and legislation by "critics."

The irony is, of course, that the American system is structured to put just such a leash on its own military, by having ordinary citizens choose who fills the CinC role -- like Roosevelt.

A further irony is that in 1932, folks who were in favour of those "valiant" guys run things tried to sieze the US government in a fascist coup (http://www.nndb.com/people/572/000055407/).

Methinks this is not the paen to uncriticised use of force folks might think it is.

 

[rmcrobertson]

I'm not sure that I understand what the most-often quoted bit of Roosevelt's writings has to do with the topic of this thread, where it appears in a context that makes it look as though we should admire Hitler because, well dagnabbit, the man went out and DID things, as opposed to, say, Thoreau, who just sat around and read and wrote.

The most interesting thing so far is the attempt, yet again, to impose a biological answer (it's in our genes--there're winners, and losers) on social questions, and the attempt to impose a simple binary opposition on a complex matter.

This "two kinds of people," jazz? Yes, there are--people who think there are only two kinds of people, and people who don't.

Oh--and when the human race has finally grown up, it will have become obvious that violence is always a piss-poor, short term solution. At times a necessary one--but only because we're idiots.

 

[sgtmac_46]

It's pretty much unsubstantiated, vaguely propagandistic garbage.

Grossman is not really a significant player in the social sciences because the vast majority of his insights are supported by anedotal or unverifiable evidence.

Pinker is another case: a psychologist who's decided to take upon himself the diagnosis of how the human psyche affects history, despite lacking that analytical training to actually see what societies do. For example, his correlation between the "feminist" US and increased violence is easily refuted by noting the general downward trend in violent crime since the late 1960s.

More false correlations abound. The primary difference between the US and the more violent societies mentioned is wealth and degrees of social inequality. Less violent countries have more money and less social inequality. More violent countries have less money and more social inequality.

What is particularly stupid in Pinker's model is his utter failure to account for two societies with strong military ethoi and pervasive law enforcement structures:

Y'know: the Third Reich and the USSR under Stalin (and other times, too).

Real social research, has however, shown that the relationship between violence and law enforcement is neither one-sided nor a simplistic panacaea. _Violent Men_(http://www.ncpc.org/ncpc/ncpc/?pg=2088-1790), Hans Toch's study of male violence, concluded that many violent situations involving law enforcement officers were instigated by the officers, and not civillian participants. Both police and civillian participants in a violent encounter characterized themselves as victims and reactors, rather than actors. The idea that the police prevent violence in wealthy societies is not as convencing as the idea that police regulate violence. Studies across different ethnic groups show that violence is "regulated" by law enforcement to favour privileged groups. The chief problem of democratic societies vis a vis the police is how to, in fact, moderate police power. They are only "sheepdogs" because they are broken to the leash by civillian authority.

"It's pretty much unsubstantiated, vaguely propagandistic garbage."

Apparently Grossman has much in common with the Marxian wackos who believe wealth inequality explains everything from the Big Bang to why bread always falls butter side down.

As for the assertion that crime has been on a steady 'downward trend' since the 1960's, by what bizarre standard do you measure that? There's actually so many inaccuracies and distortions in this post I don't know where to begin. In fact, I think it's clear enough to any rationally thinking person, especially after that assertion, that the inaccuracies are self-evident and really don't need to be refuted. From the early 1960's until the early 1990's, violent crime was at an all time HIGH. The 1960's were one of the most violent and turbulent civil decades in our history. The violent crime rates of the 1960's were NINE TIMES that of the 1950's.

Again, this just shows the lengths that Marxians will go to do distort reality for political gain. The irony is that Marxians, any time they manage to gain power to 'fix' the so-called wealth and social inequalities, end up doing so at bayonet point, case in point the aforementioned Soviet Union, as well as Cuba, China, Vietnam, North Korea, Cambodia, to name a few. Then they start instituting a little inequality of their own.

Further, much research by Marxian minded social scientists is of an extremely dubious and highly subjective nature. Take the statement "Both police and civillian participants in a violent encounter characterized themselves as victims and reactors, rather than actors". What that statement actually says is that both officer and suspect viewed themselves as a victim. Does that in any way mean they both were? Is it a surprise that a criminal would view himself as a victim of the officers inteference, even if he were engaged in criminal activity? This proves what? That one or both parties tend to view the incident from different points of view? It's a completely subjective standard. A better one would be to ask the question, based on the totality of the circumstances, was officer behavior reasonable. We are to presume that this little gem is somehow evidence of anything.

The lesson about Marxian philosophy is this, beware any philosophy that claims it is the only philosophy built on scientific principles. What will follow will be a harrowing journey in to the most dogmatic propaganda imaginable.

Take this jewel "The most interesting thing so far is the attempt, yet again, to impose a biological answer (it's in our genes--there're winners, and losers) on social questions, and the attempt to impose a simple binary opposition on a complex matter."

The issue isn't with trying to deal with obvious and varied impact that genetics has on behavior, it's obvious that it has a huge impact. The dogma comes from those who refuse to let go of the anachronistic Marxian belief that it's all learned behavior about wealth inequality. The problem with many social scientists is that they are still too in love with Marx to realize they've entered the 21st century and much their believe systems about social behavior don't stand up to hard science. When social science becomes religion, it's time to take a step back and look at the big picture.

As far as the statement about moderating police force and sheep dogs broken to the leash by civilian authority, of course that's the case. If that's your ownly issue, then you don't have one. That's what a constitution is, is nothing more than hard rules of behavior and conduct to lawful authority limiting when and how to act. There is no other way to conduct business in a democratic society.

You wouldn't buy a sheep dog and not train him to do the job right and to know his limitations, would you? hehe.

People get pretty worked up about analogies, especially when they think they are being called sheep.