Understanding violence beyond the blame

Too many people are dying preventable deaths. The most recent was a school shooting that happened in Tacloban, causing three deaths and multiple injuries. Facts are still emerging, with a police investigation underway. Suspects, who are also minors, have been identified. However, we don’t know what led them to violence. What I did notice were multiple theories thrown around, some offered by the police and some circulating in online discussions. Pictures, videos, and screenshots were freely shared even as some groups warned about the ethics of spreading videos of the incidents.

With the truth still in the early process of unfolding, wild theories can unfortunately overtake the facts. The ground becomes ripe for misinformation, which bad actors can take advantage of to advance their agenda.

It makes sense that in heightened and threatening situations, we run on heuristics—mental shortcuts that help us understand the world right away. Heuristics are usually formed through previous experience, which helps us predict the next experience. We go with the familiar and apply our preexisting worldview. They come in handy when the situation is urgent, and we must act fast, as in threats to survival.

It is tempting to see the tragedy through the lens of our fears. Fear is a great driver for shortcut thinking. We go for what seems to be the easiest explanation—and what is most familiar is what is easy. We use the event as a confirmation of our preexisting fears and concerns. “See, this is why we need to lower the age of criminal liability.” “See, this is why we need to be more aggressive against bullying.”

The problem with relying on heuristics is not that they always lead us astray. They are more than likely to be right, especially if the current experience is very similar to our previous ones. As with any shortcut, however, heuristics can make mistakes. Because it skips over some information for the sake of fast action, it can sometimes give us the wrong hunch. Not all experiences are like our previous ones—not every date is like our toxic ex, not every boss is as terrifying as our last.

Violent behavior and crimes understandably stoke a lot of fear and anger. Because we do not want such things to happen again, we scramble to find a cause and put a stop to it. We need to feel safe again and fast, making it more likely for heuristics to kick in.

Blame can be one example of heuristics, attributing the problem to a singular cause. When violence happens, the usual culprits are not limited to the suspects. We blame the parents. We blame the school. We blame the law, which some think is too lax toward youth offenders. We blame violent video games. We blame bullying. To some extent, these could all possibly contribute to the problem. The issue is with how we rush to blame, at the expense of considering how all these factors interact with one another. In our rush, we go for what seems the most obvious. In wanting the most simple and direct explanation, we might overstate the influence of one factor and ignore others completely.

For example, by casting the homicide as caused by bullying, we overlook the reality that most people who experience bullying do not shoot their classmates. There is also a subtext implying that violence can make sense if it is deemed a form of vigilante justice.

Should there be a conversation around bullying? Absolutely. It has been a longstanding—and increasing—problem plaguing our children. We point to bullying as the reason for the school shooting because bullying is already so prevalent and is a legitimate national concern. However, we might miss other factors that may be more relevant to what happened in Tacloban. There is the issue of inappropriate gun access—having guns available sharply increases the fatality of a violent event. There is ongoing difficulty for schools to provide adequate supervision and monitoring, compounded by a lack of teachers, overworked staff, and bloated class sizes. Taking a bigger step back, we see how the everyday stresses and pressures brought on by social, economic, and political forces can leave individuals acutely dissatisfied with their living conditions, leading to radicalized behavior.

When we can afford more mental energy, usually when there is less threat and we are more recharged, our brain can slow down and consider information more thoughtfully. We are able to see things as they are with fewer biases and be open to alternative explanations that may not be readily apparent. Perhaps, for example, instead of harsher punishments, the more effective but counterintuitive approach is to develop a more nurturing environment that makes violence no longer an enticing option.

If our goal is to ensure that such a tragedy would never happen again, finding one thing to blame may not be enough. We need to refrain from jumping to conclusions to surface solutions that truly work.

—————-

aatuazon@up.edu.ph