AP: Violence more common among kids of combat veterans

[PedOncoDoc]

Originally Posted by Dusty

I want my kids to be violent when required, along with posessing the presence of mind to use the element of surprise.

Amen, Dusty. Along with a sense of duty and responsibility to their community.

[1stindoor]

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

Can't find the part where they sample exclusively children of deployed military personnel.
Sampling a population set and then assuming a subset has a behavior which has a rate consistent with the larger set is a logical error.

This is why I generally discount almost any survey about GI's. We're under a microscope. I'd like to see the same survey done for a major Fortune 500 company, or perhaps Walmart...find out how many members of that subset have been divorced, used drugs, had a DWI, committed a felony, beat their spouse. Then we can all complain that something has to be done about the kind of people Walmart hires.

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by BOfH

All that new fuzzy math they've been teaching. It's a whole lot easier to spend money like water and push agenda with bull&*@# statistics when 1 + 1 != 2.

Using the grade 10 cigarette use numbers on the Northwest Bulletin link, there is a (p2-p1) result of .07 +/- .037 (at 1.96 stand. dev.) which does imply a relationship.
However, those numbers published aren't "hard" numbers and are subject to sampling bias and sources of variance not shown.

Also, statistics make only gross measures and don't allow for individual nuances.
Even if the conclusions are valid within arbitrarily chosen error-estimation bounds, so what?

Therefore what should be done?
The reactive measures taken are the true goal for many who would manipulate society.

Many who would rule care only for the gross effects and manipulating the masses, individual liberty and responsibility be damned.

[BOfH]

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

Using the grade 10 cigarette use numbers on the Northwest Bulletin link, there is a (p2-p1) result of .07 +/- .037 (at 1.96 stand. dev.) which does imply a relationship.
However, those numbers published aren't "hard" numbers and are subject to sampling bias and sources of variance not shown.

Also, statistics make only gross measures and don't allow for individual nuances.
Even if the conclusions are valid within arbitrarily chosen error-estimation bounds, so what?

Therefore what should be done?
The reactive measures taken are the true goal for many who would manipulate society.

Many who would rule care only for the gross effects and manipulating the masses, individual liberty and responsibility be damned.

Exactly

Cigarettes are fun one, I quit cold turkey about 4.5 years ago, and while I think most people can admit that they are bad for you, the sheer amount of nuances in the way people go about their daily lives, standard deviation my @ss. For example, there was a study that showed that alcohol slowed the breakdown of nicotine in the body, with negative effects. While many smokers may drink(that's another study altogether), the amounts differ, and that makes a big difference on the bodily impact of the combination based on the said study. I'd say that %67(thanks QP 1stindoor) of statistics are to push agenda and nothing more.

[Buffalobob]

I want my kids to be violent when required, along with possessing (sic) the presence of mind to use the element of surprise.

That is probably the most intelligent thing coming out of the Ozarks since I have been on the forum (ignoring your misspelling being as you obviously did not check with Wiki).

If one approaches the question from a geneticist's standpoint you can postulate that humans are much like wolves and dogs. The dogs were breed repeatedly from passive personality wolves until the aggressive traits disappeared. Aggressive personality wolves were not domesticated. So if one was to start with the assumption that most of us who are volunteer combatants are "aggressive personalities" then it stands to reason that our children are statistically more likely to have aggressive character genes than the domesticated population.

If on the other hand you wish to approach it from a sociological standpoint of what does the baby monkey learn from momma monkey, then we arrive at the same conclusion. I suspect if you studies the families of felons that you would find that their children have a higher likelihood of being felons.

[tom kelly]

LIES, DAMM LIES and STATISTICS.....and we the taxpayers support these stupid senselessly, worthless gathering of useless "facts"...TK

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Buffalobob

That is probably the most intelligent thing coming out of the Ozarks since I have been on the forum (ignoring your misspelling being as you obviously did not check with Wiki).

I laid that one up like a fried egg, because I knew you'd be scrutinizing my posts worser than a second grade teacher, and I wanted to get it over with.

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by Buffalobob

If one approaches the question from a geneticist's standpoint you can postulate that humans are much like wolves and dogs. The dogs were breed repeatedly from passive personality wolves until the aggressive traits disappeared. Aggressive personality wolves were not domesticated. So if one was to start with the assumption that most of us who are volunteer combatants are "aggressive personalities" then it stands to reason that our children are statistically more likely to have aggressive character genes than the domesticated population.

If on the other hand you wish to approach it from a sociological standpoint of what does the baby monkey learn from momma monkey, then we arrive at the same conclusion. I suspect if you studies the families of felons that you would find that their children have a higher likelihood of being felons.

So in other words, the the study indicates that non-military kids aren't violent enough.

Maybe it's time to bring boxing back as a standard high-school sport.

[ECUPirate09]

Originally Posted by Buffalobob

That is probably the most intelligent thing coming out of the Ozarks since I have been on the forum (ignoring your misspelling being as you obviously did not check with Wiki).

If one approaches the question from a geneticist's standpoint you can postulate that humans are much like wolves and dogs. The dogs were breed repeatedly from passive personality wolves until the aggressive traits disappeared. Aggressive personality wolves were not domesticated. So if one was to start with the assumption that most of us who are volunteer combatants are "aggressive personalities" then it stands to reason that our children are statistically more likely to have aggressive character genes than the domesticated population.

If on the other hand you wish to approach it from a sociological standpoint of what does the baby monkey learn from momma monkey, then we arrive at the same conclusion. I suspect if you studies the families of felons that you would find that their children have a higher likelihood of being felons.

I would be curious to look at the differences in children of SF soldiers and children of regular army/military personnel. I would think SF children would be well-adjusted and more apt to handling their fathers being gone than regular army soldiers. That is based solely on my opinion (I could not find any study or research when looking through my university's library database).

I am curious as to what the QPs might think.

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by ECUPirate09

I would be curious to look at the differences in children of SF soldiers and children of regular army/military personnel. I would think SF children would be well-adjusted and more apt to handling their fathers being gone than regular army soldiers. That is based solely on my opinion (I could not find any study or research when looking through my university's library database).
I am curious as to what the QPs might think.

There's no data because all the ops involving SF kids are covert.

[Sigaba]

FWIW, the abstract for "Adolescent Well-Being in Washington State Military Families," American Journal of Public Health by the authors of the study is available here. To the right of the abstract is a button if one wishes to purchase a copy of the article for $15 bucks.

Objectives. We examined associations between parental military service and adolescent well-being.

Methods. We used cross-sectional data from the 2008 Washington State Healthy Youth Survey collected in public school grades 8, 10, and 12 (n=10606). We conducted multivariable logistic regression analyses to test associations between parental military service and adolescent well-being (quality of life, depressed mood, thoughts of suicide).

Results. In 8th grade, parental deployment was associated with higher odds of reporting thoughts of suicide among adolescent girls (odds ratio [OR]=1.66; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.19, 2.32) and higher odds of low quality of life (OR=2.10; 95% CI=1.43, 3.10) and thoughts of suicide (OR=1.75; 95% CI=1.15, 2.67) among adolescent boys. In 10th and 12th grades, parental deployment was associated with higher odds of reporting low quality of life (OR=2.74; 95% CI=1.79, 4.20), depressed mood (OR=1.50; 95% CI=1.02, 2.20), and thoughts of suicide (OR=1.64; 95% CI=1.13, 2.38) among adolescent boys.

Conclusions. Parental military deployment is associated with increased odds of impaired well-being among adolescents, especially adolescent boys. Military, school-based, and public health professionals have a unique opportunity to develop school- and community-based interventions to improve the well-being of adolescents in military families.

Ever notice how much mileage academics can get out of one study? The tally so far: a journal article, a snippet in a professional bulletin, and a presentation at a conference.

[scooter]

Originally Posted by Dusty

There's no data because all the ops involving SF kids are covert.

There is plenty of data on SEAL offspring, who can't shut up about what they've done.

[1stindoor]

Originally Posted by scooter

There is plenty of data on SEAL offspring, who can't shut up about what they've done.

Which is why it's sometimes okay to club baby SEALS.

[SouthernDZ]

Originally Posted by tom kelly

LIES, DAMM LIES and STATISTICS.....and we the taxpayers support these stupid senselessly, worthless gathering of useless "facts"...TK

Benjamin Disraeli.