Lone Wolves in the USA (new title)

[Bob's World]

Have you any course of action to suggest?

Lots of people out there thinking, and lots of proposals, but I'm not seeing anything terribly compelling. Given that we're dealing with a tiny number of deeply disturbed individuals, I'm not sure we're going to accomplish much by looking for root causes or energy sources, which are likely to be different in each case.

Better mental health care is desirable certainly, but even mental health professionals admit that they cannot reliably predict who may be involved in these events. My concern when we discuss greater alertness or anticipation on the mental health side is that kids that just happen to be a little strange (there are many of them) may be stigmatized as potential mass murderers, which is going to make already difficult lives even harder. Aside from being unfair to those individuals, that could provoke precisely the behavior we seek to avoid.

Those with pre-existing biases against guns and video games will have predictable suggestions, but I personally see few solutions there.

I don't have any good ideas, and I'm not seeing many I think are good. I think it would be great if the identities and histories of those involved could be kept out of the media completely, but realistically I can't see how that is to be done.

I fall back to where I began in post #6. A call to look at the problem holistically and to not leap to any program of activities designed to simply mitigate or prevent the obvious symptoms. There are many factors coming together within the context of American history and culture to feed this problem. We could begin that analysis by building a list of as many of the factors as possible, and then working to backtrack each of those, both independently and in the context of how they interrelate with each other in a effort to better understand how we got to where we are, and then also how to better get to where we want to be.

I believe that both the 1st and 2nd amendments play critical roles in keeping a healthy balance of power between those who govern and those who are governed; but recent trends have been to increasingly remove restrictions on the first, while increasingly place restrictions on the second. We tend to think of these amendments in isolation, or at least not in the context of why they were created in the first place. The result is that we are out of balance. We need to find a balance across these important rights that is tuned to the overall mission.

We need to see this trend of these tragic attacks as a powerful metric that the health of our society is trending in the wrong direction. We overly focus on the individuals who act out. We can't prevent individuals from acting out, but we can look to ways to address the trends in society as a whole. This very thread is named in the context of the individual, the "lone wolf." That is tactical thinking: How do I stop the lone wolf. I think strategic thinking would be: how do I change this trend in the society as a whole.

The approach to the attacks of 9/11 share this same flaw. We focus overly on how do we "defeat, disrupt, deny" organizations such as AQ, rather than on how do we better understand and address the trends in society that are fueling the rise of such organizations.

The tactical approach provides immediate gratification of action, and also allows us to not have to take responsibility for how we have all contributed to the conditions that feed the problem. It enables the same type of avoidance of personal (or societal) responsibility that one sees in people wrestling with addiction.

We all want better answers, but first I think we need to spend more time working on getting to better questions.

[Bob's World]

Bill,

I don't claim to be, nor do I think I am smarter than others who work in "strategy" related fields. I claim only that I think about thing differently than most, and that I tend to spend more time attempting to sort out why things are the way they are in a quest to find insights to offer to guide the efforts of the decision makers above me.

Most strategists focus on identifying and cataloging lists of things that are, and then applying against those lists the framework of guidance from their own boss and bosses higher in the command structure. This is important, but is the science of strategy. What can I measure, what have I been told to do, how do I apply that at my level. This is objectively assessable.

What I am talking about is the art of strategy. What does one understand about the things going on around them, how does that make them think about the guidance they have received, and what recommendations or questions does that suggest to inform how everyone can get to a better place at the least possible cost and with the lowest likelihood of negative consequences.

I don't think we prioritize the art of strategy as highly as we should, nor do I think we attempt to identify early and nurture over time that type of artistic talent in the US military.

Instead we seem to think that once one achieves a certain rank or educational degree, or is assigned to a headquarters commanded by a person possessing a certain number of stars that one is automatically "strategic." That, IMO, is "arrogant."

We are, too often, the very type of "intelligent fool" as discussed by Mr. Einstein below. I too often count myself within that number of intelligent fools. The only difference in me is that I actively seek to avoid that natural tendency that Einstein described. I realize sometimes that makes others uncomfortable. Just shut up and color, right? There is a comfort in following orders and applying tactics with vigor and effectiveness. We have become too comfortable in that regard. We need to start trying to make ourselves uncomfortable, as that is what leads to discovery and growth.

[slapout9]

Bill,

I don't claim to be, nor do I think I am smarter than others who work in "strategy" related fields. I claim only that I think about thing differently than most, and that I tend to spend more time attempting to sort out why things are the way they are in a quest to find insights to offer to guide the efforts of the decision makers above me.

Bob, I love you man but........you think like a prosecutor!!!you think everything can be analyzed into a pure cause and effect. When it comes to dealing with people especially very disturbed people that kind of thinking is going to break down. Sometimes you just have to accept the fact that really bad stuff can happen to really good people.

[carl]

We need to see this trend of these tragic attacks as a powerful metric that the health of our society is trending in the wrong direction. We overly focus on the individuals who act out. We can't prevent individuals from acting out, but we can look to ways to address the trends in society as a whole. This very thread is named in the context of the individual, the "lone wolf." That is tactical thinking: How do I stop the lone wolf. I think strategic thinking would be: how do I change this trend in the society as a whole.

I don't see the murderous actions of mostly deranged young men as a metric of anything other than a trend among deranged young men. As frightening and disturbing as these things are, they are still the actions of very isolated individuals. There is nothing society wide about it. Something like murder rates as a whole going up and down says something about society. These don't because they are individuals taking advantage of some fairly obvious vulnerabilities.

Individuals can be prevented from acting out. That is done every day in prisons and families and everywhere. Individual humans aren't a like cells in a Portuguese man 'o war, each an animal in its own right but acting as a whole. Individuals humans aren't Borg parts. They are individuals and make individual decisions. If they are likely to get frustrated or thumped, they probably won't act in a way that will get them frustrated or thumped. Getting thumped hurts.

It is nice to think about the big picture but what is the object of the big picture thinking? It is to stop those little picture things that hurt. If short sighted superficial tactical things reduce greatly mass shootings, then the object is accomplished.

The approach to the attacks of 9/11 share this same flaw. We focus overly on how do we "defeat, disrupt, deny" organizations such as AQ, rather than on how do we better understand and address the trends in society that are fueling the rise of such organizations.

An object of things done after 9-11 was to prevent attacks of a similar magnitude from happening in the US again. That has been (knock on wood that it continues) accomplished. That isn't a flawed approach. It has worked.