Aftermath of a choice

[Bill Glasheen]

Those of you that frequent Van's forum are by now familiar with a thread started by Ted Dinwiddie.

Americans have a Choice!

It started out innocently enough with a half dozen or so of the pro gun group talking about their "right to bear arms" and otherwise sharing viewpoints. But page 2 of the thread suddenly presents a lone dissenter - our own Kunoichi (a.k.a. Deb "give me a freakin break" Downing). Imagine that - a dissenter (and a woman no less) going up against the local gun lobby. Talk about David vs. Goliath...

Somehow though the dialogue remained civil. There are others in the martial arts community that have taken on the gun lobby, and have ended up taking quite a bit of flack. Certainly much could be said (positive and negative) of both sides and their approaches in the debate. Usually though one must just blame the topic. Like abortion rights, religion, and other such topics, debate rarely changes minds and usually only inflames. In this case though it came to a logical end and Van locked the thread at about the right time. I certainly hope he keeps it on the record. As such (in the locked state), it remains a record of points of view, personalities, debating approaches, and human nature in general.

Since it is Monday and that's the proper time for Monday morning quarterbacking, I'd like to offer some commentary. I hope all take it in the spirit in which it is given.

To start with, I implored both sides of the debate to keep things from getting emotional and to avoid excessive sarcasm. Actually these debates can inform if the parties involved stick to the topic and avoid the personal attacks. For the most part, I thought it went reasonably well. I must give the "good sport" award in the debate to Panther. Why?

After an initial false start, he kept away from personal attacks and put a considerable amount of energy into debating the topic at hand. His posts were profusely backed with citations from various types of literature - most of it reasonably reputable. Certainly Deb did the same, although not to the same degree. Let's just say that Panther did a wonderful job of channeling his passion in a constructive manner. We all could learn much from his approach.

But it was more than that. Many brought up valid points in the discussion. But only a few parties in the discussion bothered to do something that is so vital to changing minds and shaping opinion - show that they listened to the other party in a debate. Hey, we're talking about taking human life here! Where's the compassion? What is self defense about, anyhow? Where's the "do" displayed in our art? What separates us from killers? So often such discussions become an all out war, with neither party showing any willingness to understand the other. One person in particular actually indirectly challenged the veracity of Deb's personal experience. Is Deb a person of her word? Unless we know something to the contrary, it's quite an insult to challenge someone's assertions. It certainly wasn't necessary to make valid points.

Another thing that's annoying in a debate is various versions of the strawman tactic. You know - paint someone as an extremist so you can vilify them. Was it appropriate? Perhaps some statements and quoted facts did INDIRECTLY come from the camp of the anti-gun lobby. So we can appreciate an occasional "counter point." But doing so to someone not on the extreme rarely proves productive. It may make the debater feel good, but it rarely changes minds. Instead, it just inflames.

One thing in particular bothered me here, and is somewhat related to the strawman tactic. It's the "white elephant" thing. I must protest it's gratuitous use in debates. Just what do people know about others' personal experiences? Don't "assume" anything about anyone. Don't assume you are the only one whose personal life experiences put you at the center of the all-knowing universe. I will say no more...

It's worth mentioning that - for better or for worse - Deb was intentionally beating on the hornet's nest. Why?? For some, they will never understand. It's like if you are a smoker and your olfactory senses and lung cilia are all burned out. You never "get" how nasty your habit is to folks that live around you. You lose perspective.

Don't get me wrong; I fully appreciate - and even endorse - the libertarian theme here. It's just that we must understand that this is a semi-public venue, and others can and will tell you how they feel. Do listen!

You see...in my older age (still have a few good years in me... ) I have come to appreciate that others may not see the world the same way I do. Imagine that! As an employee of a health insurance company, I know that I'm not on the top of peoples' "favorite" list. I hear the complaints all the bloody time. ALL the bloody time. But you know what? When we went from a not-for-profit Blue plan to a publicly traded Blue, something interesting happened. We actually became more customer-focused. Rather than telling people "This is the way it is, and too bad if you don't like it," our company actually started to LISTEN to people. Sure, people who complain often don't know what they are talking about. But you know what? They STILL complain bitterly. Hmmm... Perhaps there's actually something that we could LEARN from them. Perhaps they can't articulate their message, but it is valid nonetheless. Perhaps it's nothing more that having a little bit of EMPATHY for our customers and what it's like in THEIR world. An attitude change is a pretty amazing thing, and can do wonders for customer relations.

The same can be said of those who have strong positions on volatile topics...

So anyhow, here Deb was beating the hornet's nest. We engineers call her tactic a "step response" (or perhaps an impulse function), and the purpose of the exercise is to study the response of the "system." The response that comes forth tells you much about the system. Indeed if you read the five pages of posts, you can learn a LOT about various members in our community, their views, their personalities, their hot buttons, and their general approach to conflict. Like it or not, Deb succeeded wonderfully.

And you know what? A few people (like Van) saw it all for what it was and behaved wonderfully. There are more than a few wise ones among us... It's easy to be emotionally hijacked when you take life way too seriously. Yes, some things like freedom and personal liberty are serious topics, as Panther articulated. But knee-jerk reactions sometimes get people unnecessarily worked up. In any case, this I believe was part of Deb's agenda, and she succeeded somewhat in revealing people’s hot buttons.

All in all, I was impressed that the thread produced a pretty rich assortment of thoughts, reactions, and feelings. It's worth a careful read when you get the chance. I invested quite a bit of time in it myself, but it was well worth it.

- Bill

[Bill Glasheen]

I have a few comments to make about "sources" used in discussions.

There was a considerable amount of time debating the worth of a single article by Kellermann in New England Journal of Medicine. The article cited statistics related to ownership of a gun vs. likelihood of it being used for self-defense or against a family member. The article was significant mostly in that it was one of the early publications in the literature to investigate the public health aspect of gun ownership.

Was the article a be-all, end-all study? Of course not. The reaction to it in the pro gun group though has been interesting. One criticism is that allegedly doctors and Ph.D.s don't seem to know much about guns and gun ownership, or otherwise have an agenda that is anti gun. Another is that science messes up all the time, and is often the source of bad laws. The list goes on and on.

Basically many (not all) people "bless" an article if it supports their point of view, and damn it if it disagrees with them or infringes on the way they'd like to run their lives. So, what's the proper way to objectively consider something that's published?

To start with, there are several standards for "publication." Anyone can get anything published. I think someone even commented that Hitler was published. So what? The reason why publications like New England Journal, JAMA, Science, Nature, etc. are held in higher esteem is because they are peer reviewed publications. In other words, a bunch of smart people on the review board with experience in the field review a potential publication and decide whether or not it merits publication in the first place. They consider things like the design of the study, the significance of the work, etc. If it IS recommended for publication, then suggestions are often made to improve the work before it ever goes in print. By the time you and I look at it, it is often several versions from the original submitted work.

Then we get to study design. The Kellermann work amounted to what we might call an epidemiological study. We view the world around us, and report patterns that we see. This has some value, but it is a long way from showing causality. Just what do we mean by that? Well I'll give a few examples. Take the study of heart disease. Sometime way back, researchers showed a relationship between cholesterol in the diet and incidence of coronary artery disease. Was this an important link? Sort of... It showed an association between the consumption of food with cholesterol and heart attacks. Did it prove that consumption of cholesterol caused heart attacks? As it turns out, that isn't the case. You can eat cholesterol all you want, and it won't make it into your own blood cholesterol. But the saturated fats often found with cholesterol in animal products was the true cause. The original studies of food consumption got heart researchers on the right track, but it took more work to find the real root cause.

The true gold standard in the scientific community is the randomized, controlled trial (preferably blinded). Here we randomly assign people to either the control or the "study" group. In the case of gun ownership vs. deaths (or life saving) of various kinds, the ideal study would have us randomly assigning people or families to gun ownership - or not. Unfortunately these kinds of studies are expensive and difficult to run. The epidemiological information is where the bulk of studies come from in the beginning, largely because the data are easier to come by. These studies aren't quite as powerful in determining causality, but they make a great start.

So what must we be watching for in an epidemiological study to critically assess the findings? The first thing we must be careful to look for is selection bias. Was the control group the same as the study group (no guns in the house vs. guns in the house), or was there some systematic bias towards certain types of people being owners, or certain environments being conducive to gun ownership? Occasionally these biases can be identified and accounted for. I do that all the time in my own work. But it isn't easy.

And finally, each study - whether gold standard or preliminary - has a purpose and a finding. What people DO with that finding can make the difference between appropriate vs. inappropriate use of information. Often people will badmouth an author when opponents cite him/her in an argument, when the real fault lies with the person citing and interpreting the findings. All studies must be carefully assessed in this regard. Each one is usually nothing more than one piece in a larger puzzle of knowledge. It's up to intelligent readers of the literature (and an occasional book or review article) to put all the pieces together and make sense.

So... STOP BASHING KELLERMANN AND THE LITERATURE. After all, even he was highly critical of the design and findings of his work. Data are data; information is what it is. It's up to intelligent people to make good use of it.

- Bill

[LeeDarrow]

Dr. Glasheen Sensei,

One thing you might mention about the Kellerman study is the fact that, because it was the first of its kind and the parameters were so severely skewed because of the lack of limitations on the information (such as listing suicides as the use of deadly force in a negative context), the work amounted to a pilot study!

In parapsychology (my focus of my undergrad work), we often would perform a pilot study to garner information that would indicate whether an area or test type was worth more intensive work.

Pilot sutdies are generally somewhat loose in their designs to specifically incite peer comment for improvement as well as to help gain a general overview of something that may or may not be worth pursuing.

Pilot studies are often used for garnering grants and outside funding as they often create interesting and, sometimes controversial results - which makes getting funding for the REAL study much easier.

Good press on a subject makes grant fellowships and corporate funding entities happy. In the end, they can say "See! We did something GOOD for society (now give us our tax break, Uncle Sam!)!"

From my take on the Kellerman study, it would seem that it was intended to do exactly that - show that the topic warranted serious research AND that it was worth funding.

While the damage its misinterpretation and sloppy design has caused has been significant, I don't believe that anyone who seriously takes into account all the factors of the study's design flaws can point to it and say that it was a complete and well designed project.

From a psychological research design perspective, at least in the classes I took, the project would have been sent back for refinement before the pilot study was done as the parameters were FAR too loose for serious consideration.

Respectfully,

Lee Darrow, C.Ht.

[RACastanet]

Back to the Kellermann study, the major flaw was that of 444 homicides (in three counties) by a gun in the victim's home, in only 8 could it be established "that the gun had been kept in the home". That bit of information was not reported in the study. So, in less than 2% of the homicides was the 'cause' verified. Pretty small number to make a case out of.

Ref: More Guns, Less Crime. Universty of Chicago, 1998: 23-24

Rich

[Bill Glasheen]

The article was significant mostly in that it was one of the early publications in the literature to investigate the public health aspect of gun ownership.

- Bill

because it was the first of its kind and the parameters were so severely skewed because of the lack of limitations on the information (such as listing suicides as the use of deadly force in a negative context), the work amounted to a pilot study!

In parapsychology (my focus of my undergrad work), we often would perform a pilot study to garner information that would indicate whether an area or test type was worth more intensive work.

Pilot sutdies are generally somewhat loose in their designs to specifically incite peer comment for improvement as well as to help gain a general overview of something that may or may not be worth pursuing.

Pilot studies are often used for garnering grants and outside funding as they often create interesting and, sometimes controversial results - which makes getting funding for the REAL study much easier.

Good press on a subject makes grant fellowships and corporate funding entities happy. In the end, they can say "See! We did something GOOD for society (now give us our tax break, Uncle Sam!)!"

From my take on the Kellerman study, it would seem that it was intended to do exactly that - show that the topic warranted serious research AND that it was worth funding.

- Lee

the major flaw was that of 444 homicides (in three counties) by a gun in the victim's home, in only 8 could it be established "that the gun had been kept in the home"...

- Rich

So, it seems that "the pilot study" started some serious and informed dialogue on the subject.

When you read the literature long enough and actually publish some of your own stuff in a reputable journal, you begin to appreciate how difficult it is to come up with the perfect study on a significant topic that everyone will pay attention to. I was lucky enough in my short academic career to work with a pretty amazing team of people, and a few of our articles were published in some of the "top" journals. Most people work all their lives in academia and their work is buried in the archives somewhere, never to be read again. Let's just say that I'm a little more forgiving than some.

Are we anywhere NEAR that level of sophistication in the discussion of kyusho? Absolutely not, because the field is replete with amateurs fooling with stuff they don't completely understand, and most instructors teach what amounts to tradition and folklore. It's a long way from that to informed discussion.

Kellerman at least got people on the right track. The fact that Panther and Rich can speak as eloquently as they can on the subject means that we have BEGUN to work with half decent information.

The only thing I would suggest is that nihilism satisfies few inquiring minds. Better to publish a flawed pilot study that lays the groundwork for better work than to dismiss all scholarly (and PEER REVIEWED) work in the field as worthless. If the NRA was serious, they would fund more (and better) scholarly work in the field, and give the authors complete academic freedom to report their findings.

- Bill

[Van Canna]

Above all, we must be ever vigilant of outright insulting language in these posts.

The line was crossed on a few occasions such as the comment about “someone” having been taught the meaning of new words [Laird] and the reference about Panther’s divorce. Certainly uncalled for.

Writing such offensive remarks , one wonders about the true motive of the individual, and his/her nature. I had people writing infuriated email.

How nice to have made so many enemies. __ Sad.

[LeeDarrow]

Dr. Glasheen Sensei,

Thanks for the supporting words. A pilot sutdy is often intended to invoke responses about how flawed it is in an attempt by the creators of the initial pilot study to get more input as to how the study could be improved!

Many times, researchers are "too close to the forest to see the trees." They are so close to a study that they can overlook the obvious flaws that an outsider would spot right away.

That's the whole point of pilot studies, IMPO.

With regard to kyusho, I actually offered an idea for doing a pilot study in the old kyusho forum and got beat on pretty badly for questioning those who have studied the form for decades.

While I consider myself a pretty rational and easy going guy, I was surprised at the rather intense emotions regarding that area of study. Still am, frankly.

The Kellerman study DID get serious dialogues going and caused more study to happen, no doubt. But a pilot study that was SO seriously flawed should not have been published in the first place. Not without some serious tightening on the part of the research design team.

In my Experimental Psych class (a 300 level university course coupled with Statistice for the Behavioral Sciences making it a 6 credit hour monster!), the Kellerman study would have been sent back for serious revision by the instructor - no question about it.

While Kellerman DID engender a lot of better work and research, the damage done by such an obviously flawed study far outweighs the resulting good. Kellerman's study should have been revised to take into account the several, very obvious, flaws in data collection and assessment that Panther so well noted before it was published.

That's my professional opinion as a former Research Associate at Northeastern Illinois University's Illinois Center for Parapsychological Research - which doesn't amount to a hill of beans against your degree and experience, but it makes me feel better having SOME credits in research.

Respectfully,

Lee Darrow, C.Ht.

[Bill Glasheen]

Points well taken, Lee.

- Bill

[Valkenar]

How nice to have made so many enemies. A true “death wish”__ Sad.

Don't you think that's a little extreme? I hope I haven't made too many enemies around here arguing about these things, though I've probably made a couple. Even so I have enough faith in the Uechi community that I'm not too worried about being hunted down for my forum transgressions.

As for the observing insults carefully yes, that's an important point. We should also bear in mind that labelling a person this or that for their viewpoints can be construed as an insult.

[Bill Glasheen]

Well put, Valkenar.

As a matter of record, I sent a quick e-mail to Van asking him if he really meant to say that. I am reluctant to assert my editorial rights - particularly on established members - unless things clearly are out of hand. I don't know...it's the academic and libertarian in me.

But just as I would rather have had Van elect to remove that phrase - or not - I also stand by dissenters. Yes, even when they aren't very good at it. A comment this extreme (death wish) makes me reply by saying "Turn your gun sights to ME first. I am the defender of free speech."

The comment Van referred to was this...

Van Sensei, do you think me a feminist? No suh. I still answer to the other half of the race. But if someone doesn't stir you boys up once in awhile you get awfully complacent and just talk about being hen-pecked, what cold fish women are, how you got it stuck to you in your divorce and what you would do if someone gouged your eye.

Yes, this woman has a mouth, and maybe her mother should have washed it out with soap. However there is NO reference to Panther's divorce. But in the typical pattern of the "phantom insult" (a Glasheenism ), Panther's button was pushed and he replied about HIS divorce.

And so it was...

Why did Deb (or any "mouthy female" for that matter) make such a comment - particularly to a respected senior? Good question. Was the comment made in a vacuum? One could argue that this didn't help her case any.

Why did Panther choose to take up this phantom insult? Good question. Shouldn't he have just continued on with his stellar analysis rather than taking this bait? But then again, his response appeared rather light-hearted.

Why did Van respond with the "death wish" phrase? Good question. In my book it's an unfortunate comment. It feeds a stereotype, and makes a case for Deb without her lifting a finger onto her keyboard. It is after all a stereotype that she is lambasting, is it not? Hmmm?

And isn't Deb's "technique" after all VERY familiar? As they say, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

I hope all take my comments in the spirit in which they are intended.

- Bill

[Bill Glasheen]

I think it worth mentioning that - were feelings not hurt - all this is frankly pretty funny.

Food for thought.

- Bill

[Valkenar]

Why did Deb (or any "mouthy female" for that matter) make such a comment - particularly to a respected senior? Good question. Was the comment made in a vacuum? One could argue that this didn't help her case any.

Well, I don't quite fit the category you described, but I can attest to being somewhat surprised at the way in which women are occasionaly talked about on these forums. I'm not female, and very rarely get personally offended anyhow, but I can easily see how someone might.

So, while there may not have been any talk of hen-pecking, cold fish or divorce agreements previously in that thread, I don't neccesarily think the comment came completely out of nowhere either. Such things have been spoken of many a time.

She's also not the first person to stir the pot by speaking bluntly, or in unflattering terms about other people, in order to make her point.

But then, I'm not her, so I can't posibbly speak for her motivation, intent or anything else.

[Van Canna]

Well, I did edit the phrase. But now after reading these disjointed PC comments about "treatment of women" and other dissonant charges, I wish I hadn't.

There is a solid lesson in what happened, but I don't expect many to learn from it.

You use that smart mouth on the street, you are just asking for it.

A death wish it was [emotional death, that is, for the paranoids out there]

[Valkenar]

Well, I did edit the phrase. But now after reading these disjointed PC comments about "treatment of women" and other dissonant charges, I wish I hadn't.

I appologize for upsetting you. I don't know how I could have made the point in a more acceptable way, but perhaps that means I shouldn't have tried to make it at all. I am a little curious what definition of PC includes what I said, but I won't press it.

There is a solid lesson in what happened, but I don't expect many to learn from it.

You use that smart mouth on the street, you are just asking for it.

I'm probably just too dumb to get the lesson, but I think I've definitely missed it. If the point is that speaking rudely will get you in trouble (on the street particularly) then I agree. Then again, the forums aren't exactly the street, and what someone does online doesn't neccesarily reflect what they would do on the street. I've probably never been on "the street" as I think you mean it.

[Van Canna]

Justin,

To begin with it was not very smart of Bill Glasheen to start a thread, a “post mortem” if you will, of a rather volatile thread I had locked. Additionally he seemed to encourage or give kudos for successful “button pushing”__

I tried to bury a stick of “emotional dynamite” only to have it resurrected somewhere else outside of my control. Not a very smart or considerate thing to do, to begin with.

I don't know how I could have made the point in a more acceptable way, but perhaps that means I shouldn't have tried to make it at all.

I don’t know what your point is, but be careful in charging my forum with “disrespecting women”!

Also remember that “emotions” are serious business and very personal at that. Again be careful not to “stir the pot” __

Then again, the forums aren't exactly the street

At times they can be worse than the street, as there is history of people getting murdered over flame wars.

Being personally offensive, as Debbie was, targeting Panther and Laird individually, was not a wholesome thing to do on my forum.

I tried to put a stop to it in a fun sort of way, but now, thanks to my brother Bill, things are about to escalate again.