Slashdot Log In
Take the FBI's Geek Profile Test
from the if-you-are-reading-this-you-may-be-dangerous dept.
Do you have above average intelligence? Are you sometimes a loner, a part of a small circle of friends perceived as outsiders?
Do you have "unstable" self-esteem? Are you fascinated by cults, weapons, games with themes of violence and death?
Do you come from a dysfunctional home? Resent authority? Reject criticism?
If the answer to most or all of the above is yes, then congratulations and welcome to the FBI's Geek Profile, its checklist of dangerous or potentially violent characteristics in school children.
In recent weeks this psychological "tool," polished by the FBI and other agencies and now being distributed to a school near you, has been creeping across the country.
Federal and local law enforcement authorities have used this sort of profiling for years to spot potential assassins, criminals and terrorists.
Now, following a small number of horrific school shootings, it's being made available to educators in the United States and, according to a number of northern e-mailers, Canada as well.
And it's not alone out there. Last month, the federal government announced that Mosaic-2000, a computer profiling system developed by the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (AFT) Division and a private celebrity - security agency, was being deployed to 30 or more U.S. schools to "target potentially dangerous people."
Neither federal nor school officials have said how this material will be stored, or to whom it might be made available. Nor is it clear whether students will be made aware of the fact that they are being labeled potential murderers, or whether they and their parents will have any opportunity to respond.
Such geek -profiling tools are increasingly popular despite the fact that the violent crime rate among kids in America has been plunging for years and is virtually non-existent in Canada.
This doesn't seem to bother educators much, perhaps because even if there isn't much violence to contain, geek profiling is proving an invaluable tool against rebellious, offensive, individualistic and outspoken students. Many participate in Net and Web culture, where they have vastly more freedom and creative experience than in schools, and who report the goal of this war on the non-normal isn't safety, but conformity and silence.
But why be deterred by truth or logic? Since the Columbine shootings in Colorado last year, students at American schools have reported an epidemic of suspensions, expulsions and forced counseling sessions for various offenses: wearing "inappropriate" clothing like trenchcoats or Goth make up, playing computer games like "Quake" and "Doom," spending too much time online, responding honestly to questions about whether they like school, making what administrators consider threats against classmates or teachers.
This week, more than a dozen principals, administrators and geeks e-mailed me a chunk of the FBI report circulating through U.S. and Canadian schools, purporting to detail some of the characteristics of "potentially violent" kids.
"Your term 'geek profiling' is dead on," wrote one principal. "The kids we are all beginning to look at are those that play violent video games, who are on the Internet all the time, and who don't participate in 'mainstream' school activities. Or who are seriously disenchanted with school or the structure of school. Of course, now, we can just label them as psychos rather than listen to what they say. But I can tell you, kids who spent a lot of time on the Net or playing computer games are prime suspects for evaluation and observation. Because we all know what they can get their hands on."
Here are the specific FBI characteristics, according to several principals. Potentially violent or dangerous students are:
Usually boys of average or above-average intelligence.
Often loners, or have small circle of friend who are outsiders.
Experience unstable self-esteem.
Often fascinated by cults, Satanism, weapons, themes of violence and death.
Experience a decline in schoolwork and marks.
Come from dysfunctional homes.
Have experience with chronic bullying and drug use.
Engage in attention-seeking behavior, and don't accept criticism.
In addition to the e-mail sent by disturbed principals and guidance counselors ("there's a fine line between bright and unhappy adolescents and mass-murderers," e-mailed one counselor. "I don't see it spelled out it in this FBI profile.") the FBI's "geek profile" was outlined to a Halifax, Nova Scotia newspaper (http://www.hfxnews.southam.ca/NatStory3.html) by an official of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
The FBI's checklist is as revealing for what it doesn't say as for what it does. Bullies and predators who prey on kids who are different or "non-normal" aren't considered dangerous, nor are teachers and educators who preside over uncreative, hostile and, to many kids, suffocating classroom environments.
No group of students, parents or citizens anywhere in the United States had been given an opportunity to vote - or even comment -- on the practice of injecting federal law enforcement investigative tools designed for responding to the most serious imaginable crimes committed by adults into daily classroom life.
Kids who call themselves geeks and nerds vary widely in social skills, emotional characteristics and family and class background. But many have experienced differing degrees of boredom, alienation, and experiences with bullying. They may like forms of gaming that might be branded violent. Many are often seen as loners, or rely on small circles of friends who share their culture.
Now they may have to deal with the suggestion that they're potential killers as well. It's possible - though statistically just barely - that some of these kids will turn violent and hurt themselves or their classmates.
But what's certain is that in the wake of the Columbine killings, they are the targets of ignorant and unfounded hysteria from the very people who are supposed to be protecting them, with the willing co-operation of those who are supposed to be educating them.
Geek Testing for fun and profit? (Score:2)
Mage
Bullying (Score:2)
Bullying (Score:2)
To which end of the bullying do you suppose they are referring?
Mosaic up North (Score:4)
I'll be interested to see what is done with the results from these profiles, once someone is labeled a pontential killer, I wonder what they will do with them. Force them to become jocks?
Incidently, there has been a few incidents of school violence up here recently. One shooting incident in Canada that made the national headline. A little while after Columbine, a kid in Alberta shot 2 of his classmates. More recently, in TO, there have been a couple of kids beaten (one to death). Another gang-beating in BC last year and 1 kid stabbed over a box of Pokemon cards a month or so ago in Montreal. That's about half a dozen deaths, probably way less than the number killed in car accidents. Haven't seen any Bad Driver profiling being proposed!
Dana
Well, that's me. (Score:5)
And I was dangerous. That's right: I spent most of my high school years with a tenuous grasp of "killing people is just wrong" being the only thing that kept me from blowing the join up. I knew how. I had explosives. I had no reason to love anyone. All I had was a vague realization that there was a supreme morality and if I 'killed them all' as I wanted to I would have just reduced myself to their level.
The problem is not the profiling: that's normal prudence. I desperately wish that someone had realized just how dark my world was and tried to help. I wish they would have locked me up in a mental institution and some of what was going on in my home would have come out. But it didn't. And I still pay the price in emotional anguish. I wish there had been a chaplain in my high school instead of a "guidance counselor". I wish someone had loved me enough to intervene.
But no one did.
Bottom line is that I have no problem with this "profiling" you whine about Jon. But I wish they would concentrate more on what to do with the kids once they find them. It comes down to love. And no one in our society is ready to make that kind of commitment.
Now we can jail that psycho kid... (Score:3)
Oh, we can tell which one of the million kids is really the potential killer? Let's treat them all like potential killers, just to make sure!
Mike Eckardt [geocities.com] meckardt@yahoo.spam.com
I'm safe (Score:2)
I think I'll call my parents tonight and thank them. :)
Oh my. (Score:3)
Check.
>> Often loners, or have small circle of friend who are outsiders.
Not only that, but I know them over the 'net.
>> Experience unstable self-esteem.
Yep... Been there, done, that, and hate myself for it half of the time. ^_^
>> Often fascinated by cults, Satanism, weapons, themes of violence and death.
Well EXCUSE ME for being into swords. =p
>> Experience a decline in schoolwork and marks.
*nodnod*
>> Come from dysfunctional homes.
Dunno if _dysfunctional_, but it sucks.
>> Have experience with chronic bullying and drug use.
*Not drug use, but has been mocked derisively for years*
>> Engage in attention-seeking behavior, and don't accept criticism.
Lemme see here... I'm posting this long thing about myself, and I'll probably post an angry reply if someone flames me. =p
Maybe this is why they were so freaked out the called the FBI and expelled me just because I said "remember... may 15..." a few times. =p
Do we deserve this? (Score:2)
Do we deserve actions like this?
Do people care about attacks on our civil liberties?
Hmm, let's innocent... (Score:2)
If so... I'm moving to a remote island somewhere where seashells are legal currency. The hell with a country like that!
Is that your final answer? (Score:3)
I personally like going for the Charles Manson profile.
What's on the net... (Score:5)
Yeah, there's some nasty stuff out there. Anyone with a web connection can have their mind polluted by such pernicious crap as...
Thoreau's Walden
The complete works of Shakespeare
Pretty much all of the surviving philosophical writings of the ancient Greeks
Government legislation, bills being prepared, what congress has to say every day...
I could go on all day, but I'm sure you get the point.
Don't blame the educators.. (Score:2)
As usual, Katz never cites any hard sources for his assumptions. For statistics and analysis of crime rates among students, please take a look at the NEA's [nea.org] School Safety Facts [nea.org]. Please keep in mind that the NEA (National Educators Association) is a teachers' lobbyist concern, and does have some slant in the favor of public school teachers.
That said, I find Katz' immediate implication of 'educators' as proponents of the Mosaic 2000 program offensive. I can't think of many teachers who would support such an idiotic proposal, and also resent the implication that educators would support such an abomination to suppress free speech outside the classroom, using such media as the WWW.
While I agree that there /has/ been a failing of late for teachers to meet the needs of some of their brighter students, there is only a finite amound of work these people can do in the course of a day. When you have a class of at least 20-25 students, it is very difficult for the teacher to focus on just /one/ student. What these people need is support, not half-informed pundits shooting their mouth off.
Depends on how this information is being used... (Score:2)
I agree that the recent witch-hunting has been overboard and reactionary. The stories I've heard recently are horrible. But for the administration of a school which is responsible for the student body, I imagine some sort of profiling is necessary to identify those students who might need some counceling or intervention.
There were some items on the list that would make me take note if I were a school counsellor. Especially things like use of bullying, drug use, not responding to critisism, etc. Although a good half of the items on the list would target "geeks", the other half made some good sense.
It's not the use of profiling but the blind misuse of profiling that needs to be examined. I know that a stupid school admin might have noticed that I played Dungeons & Dragons and immediately assumed I was dangerous, but someone with half a brain would notice that I (and most geeks) would obviously apply.
Re:Bullying (Score:2)
Isn't that what they mean with this?
-
I would say... (Score:2)
This is based on people I know, my own experiences and my knowledge of what these areas require of a person.
What this profile essentially says is: "We won't trust you if you threaten our over-bloated ego, whether that be by you taking care of yourself, helping others, or contributing something of significance to society."
Remember, we've only Jon Katz' word that this -IS- the profile used, and we're familiar with his rather partisan spins in the past. On the other hand, if this is genuine, whoever came up with the test should be put under observation immediately as a potential threat, for openly violent discrimination and inciting hatred based on discrimination.
Violent Juvenile Crime: (Score:3)
This is a statistic by the Justice Department which tracks murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault.
Also, firearm deaths in general are down more than 21% from 1993
Now, the crimes are just receiving a lot more attention and sensationalism.
Pisses me off when I hear all "These kids are unbelievable nowadays" attitudes. There are just more of them... bound to be bad apples in the mix.
Re:Bullying (Score:2)
Re:Bullying (Score:2)
-
Comments on the "areas" (Score:2)
Probably more often boys because they're taught more that violence is acceptable, and expected, for boys. Though I'd expect to see a girl involved in something like this soon.
Above-average intelligence because they're more likely to be independent, be themselves, instead of just following everyone else.
Often loners, or have small circle of friend who are outsiders.
The fact that they're often into things that are considered unpopular, and often not doing the necessary things to be popular (buying the "right" clothes, playing sports, especially the "right" sports). So they're usually forced to be outsiders, though some do it willingly, realizing how pitiful the popular crowd really is.
Experience unstable self-esteem.
Getting picked on, taunted, made fun of, etc, tends to create this. I'd be suprised to see an outsider without this problem.
Often fascinated by cults, Satanism, weapons, themes of violence and death.
My question here is: what is a "cult" or "Satanism" to the people judging this? My experience tells me that anything other than big mainstream religion would fit. Wiccan? Oh, you're in a "cult"/a "Satanist". Heck, an atheist would probably be lumped in here.
Experience a decline in schoolwork and marks.
Treated like crap at school? Then you're not going to like being there or anything associated with it, and less likely to do the work. And it never helps when it's busywork or things you know and have known for a while.
Come from dysfunctional homes.
What's NOT a dysfunctional home? The Cleavers?
Have experience with chronic bullying and drug use.
As someone else pointed out - it doesn't mean you're DOING the bullying.
Engage in attention-seeking behavior, and don't accept criticism.
But what is "attention-seeking behavior"? Is flaunting the social norms this "evil" behavior? If you go to school with, say, blue hair, are you just doing it for attention and not because you just like it and it doesn't hurt anyone?
Not accept criticism? How many people do that very well?
I agree that this is a pretty good profile for the type of person more likely to have problems, and do bad things in school. What worries me is that they're most likely going to use it to identify the likely problem kids, and then treat those kids like they're the only part of the problem, while ignoring the intolerance, bigotry, ridicule, and bullying that CREATES people like this in the first place. They're not going to use it to find what the REAL problems are.
I just wonder if we're ever going to have people with clues in the important positions that can do things about stuff like this. Too bad we don't see geeks getting into things like politics, school administration, etc.
---
Slappy JoJo (Score:2)
As one who pretty much exactly matches the profile explained (I'm hoping the real list is *far* more detailed), I can personally attest that 99.998% of the people netted by this kind of testing are harmless, at least in the sense that most of them aren't exactly likely to assault their classmates with automatic weapons and home made pipe bombs.
What this type of profiling will isolate is people who tend to think differently. People who don't possess the type of herd-mentality preferred by the powers-that-be. People less likely to simply roll over and follow orders without thinking about it. People who actually *think* from time to time.
Safety, threat to the popular well being, has been the traditional excuse that the powers-that-be have used to take away freedoms, one piece at a time. The "evil spectre" of communism is gone. The arabs don't appear to be all that menacing of a threat any more. Those pesky Yugoslavians appear to have calmed down a bit. All they have left to make us afraid of is ourselves.
So... Here's the game plan for the impending Immanentization of the Eschaton.
Roughly speaking, it's as simple as that...
while(1){
print "I would rather be free than safe.\n";
}
Anthony
^X^X
Segmentation fault (core dumped)
It's the school officials... (Score:2)
To me, it seemss that the most important thing about this program is the school officials. The FBI doesn't seem to be saying anything here but to give a certain set of qualities to be on the lookout for. They aren't recommending courses of actions over-reactionary or otherwise. (I could be wrong - I've never heard anything about this outside of Katz's articles) The school officials are the ones that will choose between helping the "out of the mainstream" students by listening to their concerns, and choosing to alienate them even more by persecuting them. This program will probably not change anything - if a school has a bad set of officials, they will be quite able to screw things up whether the FBI helps them or not.
Comments Welcome!
bp
------
Serial killers, while at it? (Score:3)
Mutilation and/or torture of small animals (frogs, etc.)
Pyromaniac tendencies (likes to play with fire and burn things)
Wet one's bed until an advanced age of childhood
Wonder how many /.ers that fit?
My point? Katz is kicking the bee's nest that is Slashdot to gather outrage. The fact of the matter is, this is not geeks he is talking about. He's talking about that bastard in highschool who collected knives and beat every kid around. He's talking about the guy who took it out on everyone else because his father beat the living shit out of him back home.
Sure, that can be some geeks. But it's not the profile of all geek. Where's the love for science? Where's the obsession for details?
Besides, it's ok to profile potential troublemakers. You indeed want to stop one kid from going to school and gunning down everyone, so the best way to go about this is to explain to teachers what's at stake; to give them an understanding that some people need support and help, and to be there for them if they need it, should they ask for it. What's wrong with that?
Trouble is, like I said, geeks are not the target here. And the geeks, who seem to suffer a major social stigmata while younger, go about their lives without help just because they don't kill everyone in sight. Well, not most of the times, anyway. We're just bullied, we don't bully others. We all dream of slaughtering someone at some point in our lives, but there's a nagging something that keeps us from doing it. As we grow up, we realise it's ethics.
"The wages of sin is death but so is the salary of virtue, and at least the evil get to go home early on Fridays."
Self-Fullfilling Prophecy? (Score:2)
Now that these kids know that they are "potential terrorists," are they more likely to become terrorists? What if this "geek-profiling" was kept confidential?
Does anybody else think there is potential for self-fullfilling prophecy for those people who were borderline and would not become "bad" people to now move towards such a profile just because that's how they are labelled?
I personally do not fit into this profile, I do find myself spending hours infront of a computer though due to my great interest in technology and figuring things out, but I am interested to hear what others have to say.
A few comments... (Score:3)
"Your term 'geek profiling' is dead on," wrote one principal.
Since when does lack of participation deem someone a target? I knew alot of people who didn't enjoy the mainstream school activities when I was in highschool. I participated in a few (french honors, prom committies) but hte rest I found to be uninteresting. Most people know I'm a network admin for a Quality Assurance Lab. Recently Rational (a testing tool company) came in and did a week long course on their products. At the end everyone got certificates. I was the only person in the entire office who didn't attend (other than the boss). My boss asked me if I wanted to go and I flat out said that I had nor will I ever have any interest in manual, automated or regression testing. I told him that I see no link between it and my job other than the performance testing that users were doing on our LAN. He agreed and I got some work-related (slashdot
Schools nowadays have a ton of tasks to keep students busy but face it, there are going to be people who aren't going to be interested. Quite possibly they just want to get the whole thing out of the way and focus on learning so they can move on.
Or who are seriously disenchanted with school or the structure of school.
Let's face it, people who dislike school..simply dislike school. It doesn't make them irrational or insane. They just don't like it.
Have experience with chronic bullying...
Does this mean THEY do the bullying or are bullied themselves? This actually goes against what most of the slashdot community has been saying in the wake of the hellmouth series. Most of the people who fit this profile are usually BEING bullied.
strlen(&life); (Score:2)
You see, this has nothing to do with profiling. It has nothing to do with geeks, per se. It has to do with keeping the status quo - and that is that the "normal" kids - jocks, preps, and hip dudes can do no wrong. If they do, they're "just kids" afterall, and "boys will be boys". But when somebody who isn't defined as "normal" by the community is targetted, they'll take any excuse to get rid of him, isolate him, or otherwise punish him for not subscribing to the social formula They have laid out.
Katz, you're close here - but you didn't hit the mark. There's a much bigger issue here, and one that cuts to the very core of the definition of what a society is. This is the politics of being different. It's hard, it's tough, and it's unfair. I could tell you volumes about my experiences in high school - it was basically a prequel to your hellmouth series. Bombs, scared kids, an outraged community, and a kid on the run. I had ATF agents *in my house*. It wasn't fun.
Believe me when I say this: This has nothing to do with geeks. Anyone who is different is a target in this (and most every) society. It is the biggest fight you'll ever be in - the fight to remain yourself.
and me and me and me (Score:4)
I was a principal suspect in a pretty serious local crime based on the heresay of a "concerned" law enforcement official. The BCA interviewed my parents and girlfriend while I was in school. The up-shot: come home from school to find myself homeless, my girlfriend no longer permitted contact with me. They apprehended the responsible party a few weeks later, but I didn't get the girl back and an already tenuous relationship with my parents deteriorated further. I won't bore you with the details of the black decade which followed, suffice to say there is a big hole where my twenties should have been thanks to the intervention of "concerned" adults.
Another hand raised... (Score:2)
Bullied? Oh hell yes. Not for being smart, but aggresively and persistently harrassed for about a year and a half. To defend my best friend. Who promptly never spoke to me again. Fscker.
Nothing else to say except 'yes' to almost every single question.
Re:Individuals With Disabilities Act VIOLATION!!! (Score:2)
Having said that...I have been diagnosed with ADD and believe it to be true myself. Even at 25. =)
The Profile Fits! (Score:5)
Well, the profile fits Katz at least. It might not catch potential murderers, but it may help us find and contain future "journalists".
I support Katz profiling!
Doesn't anybody in the school know kids? (Score:2)
Very quickly we learned when we had a live, for real case of a G&T kid when you talked to a parent on the phone who was at the end of his or her rope -- the kid who'd aced the SATs as a sixth grader, had done original scientific, literary or engineering work, and was drifting aimlessly around middle school because there was nothing anyone there was teaching him.
It eventually dawned me that what we really mean when we say a kid is "gifted" is that he or she is a special needs case -- a euphemism we usually use to indicate there's something wrong with a kid. There are many bright students, but what really sets a G&T kid apart is that he can't be served by the standard curriculum.
Getting back to the FBI profile, I think it is fair to say that a kid who "meets the profile" given is probably not well served. In that sense, the profile is neither good nor bad; it is a tool. Ordinarily the key to such a tool would be what you do after you've selected out kids who meet the criteria. On the other hand, it seems pretty obvious to me that there is something extremely wrong if a school can't figure out on its wown that somebody should make it their business to get to know kids like this.
Re:Dangerous as an Adult! (Score:2)
"Ashes to ashes, and dust to dust. Don't pull it out, or it will rust"
--Highlander 2: The Sickening (There should have been only one)
Good Lord! (Score:2)
I remember looking at that list and thinking I didn't know anyone I couldn't prove was from outer space based on that list, including myself and members of my immediate family (even the relatively normal ones).
Likewise, I think most of the people I would have voluntarily associated with in high school had at least a couple of these characteristics, not to mention half the people I work with now. I suppose it depends in some measure on how you define your terms. Are you going to say a kid is "fascinated by cults" because he's a Christian Scientist (yes, some people think they are a cult)? How about "interested in weapons" because he works out at a dojo after school? "Unstable self-esteem" sounds to me like as good a definition of being a high school student as any you could come up with.
OK, maybe the perpetrators of recent school violence fit this profile, but someone needs to run anyone using a profiler like this through an elementary course in set theory. Just because a few of the members of the intersection of SMART and DIFFERENT have decided to, um, take matters into their own hands doesn't mean that all, or most or even more than a statistically insignificant few, of the members of that particular intersection are going to do so.
I wonder if anyone has really looked at how likely people who fit this profile are to commit violence. I wouldn't be surprised to see a result similar to one found over a dozen years ago when someone decided to see whether role-playing games like Dungeons and Dragons made kids more likely to commit suicide. Not only could they not find one single suicide that was directly attributable to roleplaying, they found that the suicide rate among gamers was actually less than for the control group! Someone should start looking into this. It might turn out after all that being a geek is good for you!
--
Re:This is actually kind of scary... Kind of??? (Score:2)
*sigh* Someone remind me why I live in the US?
-=Kyriani=-
(i use a handle because people dont believe my real name
GeekProgrammerArtistGamerGrrrrrrl
Giving a Damn (Score:5)
They need to be shown that somebody who can do something gives a damn.
Actually, it's sufficient to be shown that anybody gives a damn - even if they can't do anything about it.
Of course, it's nicer if they can rescue you from your misery. But we geeks are made of stern stuff. We can tough out anything, so long as we have corroborating evidence of our premises: just one other person saying "You are worth fighting for" is all it takes to make a difference.
(And may this stand as an indictment: that there are clearly young men who have never once heard that message.)
Here is the one needful thing; if you find yourself in a situation with such an anguished young person, this is what you can say:
"What has been done to you is wrong. What is being done to you is wrong. It is wrong for anyone to hit you. It is wrong for you to have to live in fear of physical violence. It is wrong for you to feel hatred for yourself, and it is wrong for people to try to make you hate yourself. You are not crazy for being in pain. You do not deserve to be treated like this."
Those are the words no one ever says.
----------------------------------------------
It Is Time To Take Action (Score:3)
What Jon is reporting here today strikes me as completely insane. Far from the normal drivel of laws and regulations put out by our society, this particular "program" is designed (even if this is unintentional) to conform us to what is "normal."
This is the design of the entire program. If you're scared to death of being smart, of knowing what you're doing on the computer, of playing the games that relieve so much tension built up thoughout the day, then you must conform. There is no other option. If you're not smart, you will become "average" in intelligence (or at least appear that way). If you don't know what you're doing on the computer, you will only be average at it. If you don't play computer games, you'll have to play other sports all the time like everyone else. In short, you will become the norm.
Technically, though, how are geeks different from the much-celebrated "jocks" and cheerleaders in our society? Both groups are relentlessly dedicated to one particular thing (be it computers, sports and girls, or guys and makeup). Both groups spend large amounts of time working at their particular field of intrest (again, computers, sports and girls, or guys and makeup). Why, psychologically, do we as a culture shun one group and exult the other? The answer is simple, if you look hard enough past the propaganda.
Geeks are a threat. People are scared of us. We can do things that they can't do; that they can't control. In their minds, everyone who plays Quake has the plans for an atomic bomb and is just waiting for a chance to use it. In their minds, everyone who can program or use the internet well is someone who can change their lives; delete their records and make sure that they never existed. These people think that being smart should be a crime, because it allows geeks to break free of the cultural bonds that bind them.
This is why we must take action.
The internet is the one last stand for the geeks. This is where we can say what we want. This is where we can express ourselves to the fullest extent without fear of retribution or ridicule. We can speak our minds, reach for the future, and declare, freely, that 2 + 2 does indeed equal 4. But they're trying to take it away from us.
If the school counselors get us; if our parents decide that we should be off the computer permanantly, this last stand will dissolve almost overnight. The internet will be taken over for the uses of the media and the government, just like everything else in this country. Your news for nerds will be the news they want you to hear, and if you think that you'll be able to reply you're in a dreamworld. Will you find any sites like the EFF? I'd doubt it. When they have rwxrwxrwx access to all the files on every server, pages that proclaim our right to free speech will at best be deleted, and at worst modified.
Does the above paragraph seem farfetched? It shouldn't. It's only a few steps away, once we geeks are taken off of the computer systems. Remember, the mass media will report only the news that it gets, and if the only news that it gets is that Mosaic 2000 is going to help reduce school shootings, that's all it's going to report. Because, obviously, we would never be so dangerous if we didn't have access to the internet. The nightly news isn't going to tell us about our encryption abilities being taken away from us. We'll just have to sit back, relax, and watch the telescreen... er... television...
This is not the future I want to live in, and I'd bet that most of you don't want to live there, either. But what can we do? Older geeks, I beseech you. Do what we minors can't. Vote responsibly for people who are against this thing. Tell your senators what you feel as a tax-paying citizen. Speak out at school board meetings.
Geeks like me -- any age under 18 -- FIGHT THIS! Talk about it in school. Mention it to your friends.
Everyone, geeks old or new, can do other things. Write letters to the editor. Put messages about Mosaic 2000 and similar programs in your
If we work together, we can stop this kind of action now, instead of when its too late. For if we fail, in the end, we will be just as helpless as Orwell's protagonist to resist; for once ignorance is strength and 2 + 2 = 5, we have no hope. Our only possibility will be to sit back, relax, drink some Victory Gin, and let the telescreen lull us to sleep. But somehow, I know that there is the spirit of the fighter in some of us. We will stop this thing, and not only will we have stopped it, but we will have assured ourselves a place where bounds are endless and where we are truly free.
Scientific approach... (Score:4)
But let's see why the profile fits so well with most geeks:
Klebold and Harris were both computer whiz-kids that also excelled in math and foreign languages (hence all the emphasis on speaking German). The "Trenchcoat Mafia" was nothing more than a group of unpopular kids that would hang out together. Klebold and Harris spoke frequently of guns, death, violence, etc. The two were very much anti-authority. I don't know about family life... But they fit the profile pretty well.
Kip Kinkle was very much involved in guns. He also was an honor student, and unpopular (jokingly said to have been voted "most likely to start world war three"). He had a lot of resentment for authority, though he voiced his anger and outrage to those closest to him. He fit the profile pretty well.
How about the Jonesboro shooters? A little more difficult-- these kids were 11 and 13. But they were both fascinated with guns and death. They both did well enough in school. And they were described as kids that nobody really even paid attention to-- nothing remarkable, but they certainly weren't popular. They don't fit perfectly, but they do hit some of the points on the FBI profile.
Or how about Matt Myers? Killed Chris Eggleston in Fayetteville, North Carolina. Fascinated with murder and death. Trouble with the law. Nasty custody battle, wound up living with his grandparents. Part of a group of social outsiders known as the "Vampires". Fucking scary bright. He fits the profile perfectly.
Taking a purely scientific view of the above data, we see the following:
*The data presented is hardly enough to be statistically relevant. Bias in any one of the above cases is enough to invalidate the results entirely.
*The data above is incomplete. How many other cases of a similar nature are there? What are the details of those cases?
*Assuming that the data is unbiased and representative of the entire population, we still have nothing more that a statistical correlation. And even then, we are unable to determine the strength of this relationship.
*Playing devil's advocate, we can say that the relationship is a strong relationship-- 90% or more of the killers fit the profile. This still doesn't imply causation. There are a number of other factors that might enter into the picture-- acting as if A implies B (especially on such a small set of data) is not only scientifically unsound, but foolish.
So I guess you can say that the profile may have *some* statistical relevance; but it has very little scientific relevance.
Then again, scientists probably fit the profiles themselves
Just my $0.02
Making a difference: a Question to Slashdot (Score:4)
OK, so we pretty much all seem to agree that things can really, really suck for young geeks.
I suspect everyone here would agree that intervention is desirable, as amphigory neatly describes.
I suspect we largely agree with the sentiment (expressed in another thread) that the intervention which the current system is prepared to do ranges from "inept" to "violation of human rights".
Well, that's because the intervention is done by normals. They're never going to get how to help a geek in distress, because (a) they have never been through it and lack the empathy necessary for problem solving and (b) they are unaware of some of the issues peculiar to geeks (list available on request; my profile is better than the FBI's :).
So the question before us is: So, should we, collectively and individually, be Doing Something?
I'm a geek, right. I don't have any particular warm fuzzy feeling about social-program volunteering, and I don't suspect any other geek does. HOWEVER:
If we don't help, aren't we part of the problem: an indifferent world that leaves these kids to rot in their misery?
What I'm envisioning is an organization much like Big Brother/Big Sister -- only run by and for geeks. A sort of "Big Geek" service.
A couple of notes on the idea:
Would people actually participate in something like this?
----------------------------------------------
Re:Well, that's me. (Score:3)
In my high school (college-prep, designed to attract justthose above-average intellect high schoolers), it came to the attention of my guidnce counselor that _something_ was wrong in my life...
After all, when a kid repeatedly skips first period to cry in the clinic, something's wrong [it was mostly my home life].
She called me into her office and told me that she'd spoken to my mother [the source of most of my anguish], and that clearly nothing was wrong. I had to "grow up" and go back to class.
I guess what I'm saying is that [in my expeirience, in a school FOR GEEKS] even when guidance counselors can clearly see that something is wrong in a kid's life, they don't know how to handle it.
They'll believe someone else over you--if you're a geek, they'll believe the popular kids, they'll believe your parents, they'll believe the teachers who have no idea what's really going on...but they won't listen to you.
Experience with chronic bullying (Score:3)
Nah, just transfer them to the new maximum security school next to the old industrial park. You see, these smart kids are disillusioned and angry because they've been oppressed and bullied by peers, teachers, and administrators since elementary school. So obviously the answer is to oppress them some more, until their spirit is properly broken. Then they'll behave like proper social units.
I love the language used in the profile: does the student "have experience with chronic bullying?" Such lovely doubletalk -- they're not hunting for the INFLICTERS of arbitrary violence (who will grow up to be vice principals or middle managers). Mosaic wants to proactively punish the VICTIMS, before they retaliate. TheOnion did a fabulous satire on this topic [theonion.com]
Re:Bullying (Score:5)
We would call the logic sick, but it matches reality. Bullies already know how to handle anger and frustration - they go beat up somebody weaker than themselves. If they fought someone as strong as themselves they would called "fighters," not "bullies," and if they fought somebody stronger than themselves they would be described as having a death wish.
But how do the victims of the bullies handle anger and frustration? Some will have their own, non-violent, outlets, others will become bullies themselves, but the rest will keep that anger inside. When it becomes too much to bear, they might only have a single model for how to deal with it - taking out the "weak." But instead of using their fists, they'll use their brain and be *far* more dangerous.
So if we use history as a guide, it's appropriate to use a history of being bullied as a warning flag for future violence -- but we must also show absolutely no mercy to the bullies themselves. By this same logic, they are acting as recklessly as if they tossed a dozen loaded firearms into the schoolyard playground. Keep track of the victims, if necessary, but the bullies should be expelled on first offense, and locked up on the second offense. If that ruins the football season, tough shit.
Re:Scientific approach...Correlations matter (Score:3)
Granted the data seems to only imply a correlation but correlations are often useful. While they do not imply that one factor causes the other they do allow one make fairly accurate predictions. For example, the presence of smoke and a fire are strongly correlated so if you see smoke you can usually predict that there is a fire.
If you consider some philosophical stances (e.g. Hume), correlations are the only thing that we have since we can not prove causation for anything. We base science on very strongly correlated things. Nothing tells us the sun will rise in the east tomorrow but we are fairly confident that it will do so tomorrow since it has done so every morning. (For those that claim that physics tells us the sun will rise in the east, what insures that the laws of physics won't change tomorrow?)
Katz is overreacting (Score:3)
Although I'm in opposition to the majority here and will probably get negative moderation for this, I think that Katz is overreacting. There are several problems with Katz's article.
A major fault is that Katz doesn't provide any evidence to support his claims. He cites emails from several principles and administrators but doesn't give us a copy of the report, just a list of characteristics. We're not even sure if the list of characteristics is complete. The url for the halifax paper is link to a bank robber being caught not a "geek profile." In addition I'm curious why a canadian law enforcement agency has the profile and is giving it to canadian papers. Toss in the lack of coverage in other media sources and I'm sceptical as to the validity of the profile.
My other problem with this is that Katz seems to see a lot of the reaction to the Columbine incident as being "anti-Geek." He also seems to believe that profiles aren't necessary. Although, one would ideally want schools to evaluate everyone individually, schools have limited resource so it makes sense to have a profile that selects those most likely to be violent/dangerous/in need of help and focus the resources on those people. In analogy, think about how many system administrator read through system log files every day and how many use logcheck, swatch, etc. to just screen out the important ones based on a profile.
Katz claims that "bullies and predator" that pick on other children aren't singled out but several of the points in the checklist apply
Come from dysfunctional homes.
Experience unstable self-esteem.
Have experience with chronic bullying and drug use.
I think the second item is applicable and since most bullies usually have a dysfunctional family file the first one applies. In addition, bullying is often used to bolster a lack of self-esteem so the second item probably also fits. Katz's assertion about teachers is not valid since the profile is supposed to pick out potentially dangerous students. Whether schools/teachers are responsible for this is a valid question but is not importance in the context of a discussion on the merits of the profile.
Katx also goes on to bring in Mosaic-2000. Doing so is irresponsible and does not contribute anything to the article. Given that the details of how the program identifies "dangerous" students and how this program will be used, claiming that this program will select geeks is not very credible.
All in all, I think that Katz is overreacting or delibrately trying to provoke a reaction among the Slashdot community. His evidence is based on heresay, and links that don't check out. The lack of coverage in other media also discredits his article. The widespread coverage that the national media gave to Mosaic-2000 makes their silence on this profile all the more damning.
Correlations matter-- until you start applying... (Score:3)
My main problem is with the attitude that if we get rid of the smoke, we get rid of the fire (to use your analogy). For example, let's say Joe Geek gets targeted as a dangerous kid (he fits the demographic in a lot of ways). What would he do?
* He would not mention the fact that he plays Quake to anybody
* He would definitely stop hanging out with the small group of friends he has. He would sit in the middle of crowds, trying to look like he fits in even though he isn't talking to anybody.
* He would stop carrying around "A Course In Combinatorics" and "Cryptonomicon" in his backpack and start carrying around books by Steinbeck and Ginsberg.
After being observed by the administrators for a suitable period of time, it is determined that Joe Geek does not fit the demographic and is therefore not a threat. But in reality, Joe is just angrier at the school-- he's just not showing it. This only serves to make it all the more likely that he'll act out his anger in improper ways, perhaps even in violent outbursts.
Correlation is a good thing, and it should not be dismissed offhand. It's one of the most powerful tools that a scientist has-- and used properly, it can give insight into the way things work and the why they work that way.
But don't assume that "mainstreaming" a person will make him or her less "apt to kill".
Re:Just one question (Score:3)
So when is Hellmouth 7 coming out? (Score:3)
Jon Katz has now written too many stories on thsis topic, with too little new content. They are all emotional pulls about geeks and how highschool is unkind to them.
Hellmouth 1: The Original story [slashdot.org].
Hellmouth 2: The Sequel story [slashdot.org].
Hellmouth 3: The Let's-Make-it-a-Trilogy story [slashdot.org].
Hellmouth 4: The Mosaic-2000 story [slashdot.org].
Hellmouth 5: The Here's Proof story [slashdot.org].
And currently posted at a slashdot forum near you .... Hellmouth 6. (You're reading it!)
While the first couple Hellmouth articles might have been informative and interesting, I think Katz has exhausted the topic. The articles seem to have very little to say, other than 'this is how geeks in highschool are being treated unfairly now'. They don't contain much new information, and certainly, Katz never seems to have any new insights. Obviously these articles connect to a lot of us, who do fit such "profiles" to some degree, and a lot of us had not-so-good high school experiences, but I am getting a bit sick of these emotionally overwrought fluff articles.
There is nothing new about this "News".
---
Re:hmm... (Score:3)
> Yes, Amphigory has an agenda, but that doesn't mean that what he says
> isn't true.
And what is my agenda? And what I said was true. I have been "through
the hellmouth".
> Remember the way that in Animal Farm after the animals had
> been living under the tyrant pigs for many years they started listening
> to that bird who tried to sell them the "Rock Candy Mountain" idea
> again. (Their reason being that after suffering all their lives and
> dying miserable, surely there had to be something afterwards.)
No... at the time I wished there wasn't a God, so that I could have
killed myself. I wanted to die for good reason. But God saved me from
that.
> Amphigory would probably love to see us all forced into church (his
> church, not the one I attend) at gun-point, "for our own good." Of
> course, it is also quite possible that he is lying, people in the
> biggest cult we've got going in this country (They call themselves
> Christians, but seem to find the actual text of the New Testament to
> be decidedly inconvenient.) are quite capable of lying to achieve
> their ends, despite the Ten Commandments.
You seem to think I'm a fundamentalist. Upon what do you base this? I'm
not. I am an average, theologically conservative Christian who takes the
text of the new testament
about "Brothers, do not slander one another"? (James 4:11) You impute
thjat you are a Christian, well let me call you to task and say that your
callous slander of me without facts or anything else is distinctively non
Christian.
As far as forcing people to attend to church: how on earth could you know
that? I am actually very strongly against religious involvement in
government, am against prayer in public schools, and am against this
posting the ten commandments idiocy. But you didn't bother to find that
out, did you? You just slandered me when I dared to be vulnerable. Very
Christian of you, punk.
> o you are right to question it, but I tend to think that behind all
> unreasoning religious fanaticism lies a foundation of severe emotional
> scarring.
Which unreasoning religious fanaticism was that? Specific example,
please. Would that be my belief that religion can help people? That's
the only one which you could possibly be aware of from my post.
> To be fair, I may send my own children to a religious school (of my
> own choosing) rather than a public school, if they are going to get
> religion at school, I'd prefer it to be the religion I was raised in
> and not some wierd dogma that I find to be "cultish" in its
> application. (Remember Reverend Jim of the People's Temple claimed to
> be a Christian.) This is actually happening at some schools in this
> country, see this article. This is what happens when educated people
> don't pay attention to local politics.
Once again, you imply many nasty things about me without knowing me or
anything about me; without knowing my beliefs or anything about them.
Your slanders genuinely wounded me. But somehow I guess that you're not
sorry. You're too busy (to refer to Animal Farm: I've read it, go
figure!) being a pig.
Re:control (Score:3)
Premises (Score:3)
I think we agree more than disagree. Where our views start to diverge is how we both answer the question, "To what degree are geeks different from non-geeks?"
From your post, phrases like 'We are a people' and 'We need different... cultural tools' lead me to believe that your answer to that question is "To a very great degree, at a fundamental level."
While I agree that there are differences between geeks and everybody else, I don't think they're that deep. We all follow Maslow's hierarchy fairly closely. I have a desire to be needed and respected and loved just as the quarterback of my high school football team does. My social group in high school got picked on, and we picked on other people, including some of the jocks.
To follow the example you give, introversion is not limited to the geek set. I've met plenty of introverted people who had little else in common with me. Also, I think just about everybody goes 'off the rails' during adolescence -- I've met very few adolescents who didn't suffer through periods of questioning authority and one's identity. In my opinion, no one fits the Conforming Norm, and any program that fails to recognize this will have limited successes.
The thing that scares me here is the idea of a Geek Identity movement. If people sit down and start to think, "Hey, those guys are a whole lot different from everyone else," doesn't that lend validity to the whole Geek Profile thing Katz is railing about? I mean, look at what's happened to the Goths -- they're hardly suicidal Manson freaks, but that's the stereotype. That's what scares me. It's bad enough that kids feel the need to kill themselves and others, but if superficial similarities are used to alienate kids like we were even further....
You're absolutely right on the unstated premise in your last paragraph -- we're better off helping kids like ourselves. I certainly have sympathies for the little guy out there with a big stack of books, a guitar, a computer, and nothing else. Does that mean I ought to be Rob Malda's Big Brother?
--
Everything is relative? (Score:3)
Often loners, or have small circle of friend who are outsiders.Well, yes, that fits me pretty well. I geek about with a bunch of techies.
Experience unstable self-esteem. Don't you find it ironic that the greatest thinkers of all time question everything and are often in turmoil? Freedom comes with a price; freedom from being a sheep is no exception.
Often fascinated by cults, Satanism, weapons, themes of violence and death. I am a Christian, but that doesn't mean I don't want to learn about what other people are thinking. I did a term report last year on several different worldviews. As for weapons? There's nothing wrong with hosing down a dead monitor with gasoline and trying to ignite something by firing BB's at it. It's geeky and cool, and doesn't hurt anyone. Death? Death is part of life.
Experience a decline in schoolwork and marks. Decline since when? Not that I know of.
Come from dysfunctional homes. Both sides of my family have manic depression. Enough said.
Have experience with chronic bullying and drug use.Again, which end of the bullying are we talking about here? As for drugs, I suppose I do try to get caffeine pills and Mountain Dew from my older friends (who happen to have money...)
Engage in attention-seeking behavior, and don't accept criticism. I accept criticism from those who have credibility. As for attention-seeking, the trenchcoat, chains, and (formerly, regrettably) purple hair are not blantant attempts at getting attention. As a geek girl I'd say that the cheerleaders who come to school in tight jeans and midriff tanktops get a lot more "attention" than I do. But they are encouraged because it's NORMAL.
There comes a point when one becomes self aware. If no one else around you is self aware, you are faced with no other choice but to break off, to become free from them in any way you can. For me, it happened when I was 10 and my mother had a stroke. None of my classmates at the time thought much more about anything than sleepovers, sports, and hairstyles. While they were talking about their new Jonathan Taylor Thomas posters, I was boiling inside, everything I believed on the brink of shattering.
And I'm told by my principal and teachers that I'm just trying to get attention when I dress differently.
No.
I broke off from the norm years ago because the norm would not listen to me. I did what I had to; being on the "outside" is now a part of me. You can dress me in Tommy Hilfiger or Gap or whatever; you can dye my hair blonde, you can wedge my feet into tiny sandals and take away my computer; but you cannot change who I am.
Who does this hurt and why? It hurts everyone involved. Families, the geeks themselves, and eventually the world might be missing out on some of the greatest minds of all time. And why? Because the government legislates that some things are OK for some, while others aren't.
I'm not trying to promote religious jihad here..there are enough flames on Slashdot as it is. I'm saying that in order for people to function without chaos, there must be a set of absolute rules. Not this pseudo-bureaucracy, not anarchy, not communism--we've been shown already that they don't work.
I simply cannot understand why anyone here would complain about this injustice done to geeks, yet flame anyone citing possible good in posting the Ten Commandments at a school. Absolutes sound mightily good right now to me. I know I'm tired of being at the short end of the administrative stick.
Just my $.02.