Data scientist Explains Why The US Won’t See A Violent Political Revolution Anytime Soon

BI ^ | 4-22-2017 | Sam Harris, Quora

[blam]

This post from Sam Harris, an entrepreneur, engineer, and former data scientist at the U.S. Air Force, originally appeared on Quora as an answer to the question, "Is the United States on the brink of a political revolution?"

No. We don't have enough teenagers.

When I was an officer in the Air Force, I was a data scientist, and at one point we were tasked with determining what level of violence in Iraq could be considered "normal" so that we could declare victory and leave with dignity.

Obviously, the base level of violence in Iraq would be higher than in Sweden, but precisely how much higher and why? These were the questions.

We did analysis on hundreds of factors across centuries worth of data from hundreds of countries to determine what drove the levels of violence in a society. The worst violence levels are obviously during civil wars and government collapse.

We looked at wealth inequality, famine, disease, number of children per woman, infant mortality, median GDP, average GDP … literally hundreds of factors and their cross-dependencies that numbered in the quadrillions — think average GDP combined with median life expectancy combined with infant mortality combined with … you get the idea.

What we found was that the most significant factor was the number of individuals aged 13–19 relative to the number of individuals aged over 35. If the teenage group ever exceeded the over 35 group, violence increased to the point there was a very high chance of civil war. Furthermore, the opposite was true. If the 35+ year-olds outnumbered the teenagers, there was no chance of civil war.

(snip)

[txhurl]

Quite easy when the life expectancy was 42.

[jobim]

In 1964, baby boomers represented about 40% of the population. In other words,
in 1964 more than a third of the population was under 19 years old.

[Interesting Times]

Political forecasting ping.

[zot]

Thanks for the ping. Statistical analysis shows correlations, but doesn’t address causation.

[Vlad The Inhaler]

Historical data may not apply so much to presnt circumstances.

We now have the first generation of teenagers who for the most part have almost no experience with real weapons,
outdoor activities, camping, hiking, hunting, self sufficiency, etc., etc.

It's one thing to show up as a mob and protest against a speaker or politician.

It's quite another to wage prolonged combat.

And you can't overthrow a government or fight a civil war if you have a nervous breakdown when you can't text or if you
have to run to a safe room when someone uses a word you don't like or wears a hat that offends you.

[zeestephen]

Re: “A very good article, and I would encourage all to take the time to read it.”

I read only the excerpt.

But, it seems to me the author fails to adjust his numbers for the historical impact of rising life expectancy.

In 1800, the average global life expectancy was about age 40.

That means that teenagers outnumbered 35+ year olds in almost every country in the world for most of recorded history.

However, the world was not in a perpetual state of revolution before 1800.

I will speculate that, until the spread of democracy in recent times, the average number of revolutions per capita per century stayed fairly constant for thousands of years.

[zeestephen]

A different interpretation of the photograph...

An American officer makes an enlisted man carry him so his freshly polished boots won’t get wet!

[antidisestablishment]

You may be on to something. Human nature doesn’t change, but people do.

Today’s youth remain teenagers for decades. This developmental delay in concert with social media (AKA brainwashing) has no historic precedent. It is a perfect storm of irresponsibility exacerbated by intractable ignorance and peer dependence. Brave new world, indeed.

[arrogantsob]

Welfare recipients are accounted for.

Not sure how he would account for the Nazi phenomenon were the earlier followers were not in the age group.

[Clutch Martin]

“No, this is pretty good. If you look at the American revolution, an overwhelming % of the colonists were under 30.”

I read that only 12 or 13% of the population was in favor with splitting from the crown for independence.

[Clutch Martin]

“it seems to me the author fails to adjust his numbers for the historical impact of rising life expectancy”

However, by today’s standards the peak age of vitality and physicality seems to be around 30.
A 40 year old was probably a lot tougher in the 1800’s.

[LS]

I think we have it closer to 30

[rockrr]

On another thread Mad Max (waters) is bragging that she has “the Millennials” on her side as she tries to work up lefty outrage in pursuit of a Trump impeachment - a soft coup. She’s nuttier than a squirrel turd of course but imagine if Øbongo rallies the troops. We’ve already seen the antafags in significant numbers out terrorizing US citizens, and I bet that barry could easily incite three times the number.

Now that’s not to say that they would stand much of a chance of succeeding - they would suffer a massacre. But this guy isn’t talking about WINNING a revolution, just starting one.

[Born to Conserve]

” If you have an IQ of 80, revolution would never come into your mind.”

Actually, there has been talk that the most violent countries are those whose average IQ is between 80 and 90. Above or below, things seem to be more peaceful.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Nobody can beat destiny

[Crucial]

Yes, you state it very well. The social paradigm has definitely shifted.

[blam]

"Today’s youth remain teenagers for decades. This developmental delay in concert with social media (AKA brainwashing) has no historic precedent. It is a perfect storm of irresponsibility exacerbated by intractable ignorance and peer dependence. Brave new world, indeed."

Why Are So Many Millennials Living With Their Parents Instead Of Getting Married And Starting Their Own Families?

[qam1]

In 1800, the average global life expectancy was about age 40. That means that teenagers outnumbered 35+ year olds in almost every country in the world for most of recorded history.

The reason the past life expectancies were so low was because of infant mortality & childhood diseases. If you made it to your teens back then you pretty much had the same chance to live into your 70s as you do today.

[qam1]

In 1800, the average global life expectancy was about age 40. That means that teenagers outnumbered 35+ year olds in almost every country in the world for most of recorded history.

The reason the past life expectancies were so low was because of infant mortality & childhood diseases. If you made it to your teens back then you pretty much had the same chance to live into your 70s as you do today.

[alexander_busek]

I think a huge factor he misses is our population is 52% female, 48% male, so no male is without a female if he wishes.

Those stats are true, but skewed by the fact that, above the age of - say - 80, women are overwhelmingly in the majority.

In other words: The 52:48 ratio reflects the fact that there are a lot of female octagenarians out there with no hope of finding a same-aged male partner. But that does not create any social pressure (80-year-old women unable to find a partner are unlikely to generate social unrest).

BUT: In the "sexually eligible and active" age group - i.e., 13 to 35 for women and 13 to 55 for men - men are in the majority (i.e., there is a dearth of potential partners for the men, thus increasing the competitive pressure with which they must contend).

So, while you will have roughly the same number of male and female 20-somethings, the male 20-somethings are competing with men in their twenties, thirties, and even forties to "bed" the comparatively small pool of female 20-somethings.

So, men in their late teens and twenties are at a tremendous disadvantage. They are competing with their contemporaries - but also with wealthier, maturer 30plus-somethings. So your scenario ("Reverse those numbers and you have un-attached boys looking for a fight.") actually already applies for modern U.S. society.

The hook-up culture, contraceptives, etc. may alleviate the problem somewhat for young American men (they can thus hope to at least occasionally "get some") - but, all in all, they are at a disadvantage vis-à-vis same-age women. (Of course, once those women hit, say, 35 and their appeal declines precipitously as a result, their "marketability" and "bargaining power" naturally decreases.)

The only time in history that young men "had it made" was in the 1960s: Conservative values were still in place, so older men were unable to "take advantage" of the explosion of female Baby Boomers "coming onto the market." Eligible men (say, in their late 20s) were vastly outnumbered by eligible women (between 18 and 30) - and there were suddenly no social constraints against leveraging that advantage.

Regards,