"In the South, there's just more folks who need killing."

Interesting article on findings indicating that Southerners are more violent than northerners.

The authors have also conducted an ingenious and intriguing series of social-psychological experiments to show that Southerners respond to threats and insults in different ways than Northerners do. This is some of the best evidence ever assembled on the violent proclivities of Southerners and a formidable challenge to the many scholars (oddly enough, most of them Yankees) who have pooh-poohed the "regional subculture of violence" thesis. In one series of experiments, subjects were affronted and insulted (for example, an associate of the experimenter would "accidentally" bump into the subject while walking down the hall and mutter "asshole"), then tested for cortisol and testosterone levels as well as assessed with paper-and-pencil tests. Sure enough, Southern males in these experiments showed significantly stronger physiological and attitudinal responses than Northern males. In another study, observers stationed in the hall (pretending to do homework but actually observing closely) noted whether the subjects' reactions to the insult were amusement or anger. Southern subjects were significantly less amused and marginally more angry than Northern subjects.

What assholes! ;)

I'm a northerner, and if someone bumped into ME and muttered "asshole" I'd be all like "wtf dude? what is your problem?"

In the south, though, that might get me shot. ;)

disclaimer: where I work, I might get shot as well.

Moral of the story: do not intentionally bump into people and mutter "asshole."

Sounds like the Southern subjects demand more respect than their Northern counterparts.
Good for them.

or example, an associate of the experimenter would "accidentally" bump into the subject while walking down the hall and mutter "asshole"

Maybe the southern had a stronger reaction because this is a very rude thing to do. If the person had said "I'm sorry" or "Excuse me" I bet the southern's reaction would be very different. We take good manners very seriously. Although, unfortunately, that seems to have become less extreme.
I realize this is only one example, but if the other experiments were the same, then its probably is the perceived lack of manners/rudeness that is causing the high number of "violent reactions" on the southern side.

I agree, mtp, and I think you hit the nail on the head.

morethanpretty;587838 wrote:

Maybe the southern had a stronger reaction because this is a very rude thing to do. If the person had said "I'm sorry" or "Excuse me" I bet the southern's reaction would be very different. We take good manners very seriously. Although, unfortunately, that seems to have become less extreme.
I realize this is only one example, but if the other experiments were the same, then its probably is the perceived lack of manners/rudeness that is causing the high number of "violent reactions" on the southern side.

But isn't it rude, and having bad manners to respond violently?

then tested for cortisol and testosterone levels as well as assessed with paper-and-pencil tests. Sure enough, Southern males in these experiments showed significantly stronger physiological and attitudinal responses than Northern males. In another study, observers stationed in the hall (pretending to do homework but actually observing closely) noted whether the subjects' reactions to the insult were amusement or anger. Southern subjects were significantly less amused and marginally more angry than Northern subjects.

The reactions were not violent, they were just justifiably more angry and "showed stronger physiological and attitudinal responses."

They didn't beat the shit out of the asshole who called them asshole.

In one series of experiments, subjects were affronted and insulted
(for example, an [COLOR="Red"]ASSHOLE [/COLOR] would "accidentally" bump into the subject while walking down the hall and mutter "asshole")

Then the reaction was to treat the asshole like an asshole. Where is the confusion here?

It's not reaction to conflict in a hallway:

Culture of Honor makes a compelling case that there is something about Southernness itself that accounts for the link between region and violence. The case begins with a review and reanalysis of the extensive research on region and homicide. University of Michigan psychologist Richard E. Nisbett and University of Illinois psychologist Dov Cohen find many common explanations for the South's higher homicide rate wanting. The legacy of slavery is probably an inadequate explanation because the non-slave regions of the South show the highest homicide rates; temperature fails as an explanation because the cooler upland regions have higher homicide rates. Relative poverty rates cannot be ruled out as a causal factor, but the regional effect remains even when poverty is taken into account.

Well it makes as much sense as their reasoning.

To test their theories for which they have found no causal relationship, they run around the hallways knocking people over and calling them assholes. SCIENCE! :lol:

Maybe its because so many carry guns, makes it a lot easier to kill a person if you have a gun.
I wonder, Brittan has basically outlawed guns right? Is there reliable data to show murder/crime rates have risen significantly in the past years? Info on other countries with restrictive gun laws?
I've been researching health insurance all day, forgive me if I don't feel like looking up another damn thing. Someone rescue me from my laziness and give me the answers please.

oh god you've done it now moar.

1- Southerners are more self reliant.
2- Some people just need killin'.

Brittan is where?

Ever since the War Of Northern Aggression, things just ain't been the same...

monster;587992 wrote:

Brittan is where?

Leon?
In the House of Lords these days I believe :)

FTR - I know it was a spelling mistake.
But it was a good one.

Spexxvet;587810 wrote:

Interesting article on findings indicating that Southerners are more violent than northerners.


What assholes! ;)

:lame:

Major BS meter going off.:rolleyes:

Shawnee123;587840 wrote:

I agree, mtp, and I think you hit the nail on the head.

Typical Southerner reaction, hitting things on the head. Bloody violent rednecks. :bolt:

Maybe it is just that Northerners are more willing to eat shit than Southerners? I mean if some asshole bumped into me and called me an asshole, I might well call him an asshole back. Why not?
(and how did they get this experiment approved by the ethics committee?)

For MTP's questions, once, while beating my head against the brick wall that is Radar, I posted the statistics on crime rates in USA, Britain, Australia, Canada and maybe a few others. The stats for assault, robbery, and theft were all fairly similar - differences of up to 50% or so, but the murder rate in the USA was 600 to 800% higher than the others; i.e. 6 to 8 times higher. This was from UN statistical database. My interpretation of these numbers was simply that the relative availability of guns makes it much easier for a dispute to end in killing.

The study here has several components, some good, others pretty lame.
Firstly, they noted that the levels of violent crime in the South are higher, and looked for explanations. They ruled out temperature and slave history, and found that relative poverty was no more than a partial explanation.

Thus, there is a difference without an explanation.

They put forward the hypothesis that there is something in Southern Culture that makes people more likely to behave violently.

So far, so good, IMHO. That some cultures are more disposed toward violence than others is perfectly reasonable and possible. And, the combined images of the honour-duelling "killin' gentleman", and the trigger-happy red-neck, make it seem plausible.

It is an empirical matter whether this is true of any particular culture, though, so they did an experiment, the hallway-bump business.

That experiment strikes me as pretty lame. Maybe it it is just badly described here, but it seems to me that it doesn't get at the real issue very well. An in depth interview asking "what would you do if..." questions might be better.

The proper procedure, and what will probably happen, is to do lots of different experiments - surveys, tests, comparisons, etc. A huge literature will be produced, and after a few decades someone will summarise all this and try and find a clear answer. That is the scientific method.

Let me get them started:

(1) You come home to find a man screwing your sister. Do you:
(a) apologise for interrupting and leave them to it.
(b) go on Dr Phil and wail about how heartbroken you are.
(c) shoot the no-good varmint.
(d) set up the video camera, then join in.

[COLOR="LemonChiffon"]Results:
a = Northerner
b = Mid-westerner
c = Southerner
d = West Coast[/COLOR]

e) none of the above

Thank you Zen for those murder-rate stats, but here we all know the UN is a useless tool of, uhm, fascist! [COLOR="LemonChiffon"]No seriously I have heard it.[/COLOR]

As for a Southern, both C and D are reasonable answers actually. C - violence, D- insest, both actions we southerns supposedly practice in abundance. Maybe a combination of the 2 would be more precise.
E - shoot the no-good varmit, then set up the video camera before screwing your sister.

Eh. I have lived in the "South" since 1994. Other time was around the US and overseas, I was born and raised in the "North". For every violent redneck in the South I can show you an equally violent person in the North, pick a city any city, Boston, New York, Chicago, how about New Jersey, talk about some one minded people. The whole premise is a bit ridiculous.

TheMercenary;588159 wrote:

Eh. I have lived in the "South" since 1994. Other time was around the US and overseas, I was born and raised in the "North". For every violent redneck in the South I can show you an equally violent person in the North, pick a city any city, Boston, New York, Chicago, how about New Jersey, talk about some one minded people. The whole premise is a bit ridiculous.

You ain't just whistling Dixie, Merc. I agree.

I wonder where the term "Southern Hospitality" was derived? Surely it wasn't meant to be ironic.;)

Crimson Ghost;587994 wrote:

Ever since the War Of Northern Aggression

Don't you mean the War of Northern Self-Defense Against Homicidal Southerners?:D

Is there a connection to that theory about the necessity of being polite in close quarters - I forget the name for it. Something about Northerners needing to be able to get along for an entire winter without strangling each other, all cooped up in the same place. Perhaps Northerners have evolved a way to ignore assholes who bump them in the hallway?

TheMercenary;588159 wrote:

Eh. I have lived in the "South" since 1994. Other time was around the US and overseas, I was born and raised in the "North". For every violent redneck in the South I can show you an equally violent person in the North, pick a city any city, Boston, New York, Chicago, how about New Jersey, talk about some one minded people. The whole premise is a bit ridiculous.

[COLOR=DarkOrange]
[SIZE=7][COLOR=Red]GO FUCK YOURSELF! I WILL BEAT YOUR MOTHERFUCKIN' ASS!!!![/COLOR][/SIZE][/COLOR]

Oh, wait.
I just proved your statement.
Nevermind....

richlevy;588188 wrote:

Don't you mean the War of Northern Self-Defense Against Homicidal Southerners?:D

You say potato.
I say Russian vodka.

HAGGIS at CG!

capnhowdy;588168 wrote:

I wonder where the term "Southern Hospitality" was derived?

From, and about, the Southern Belles. Maybe that's why the Southern Gentlemen are violent. ;)

Seriously though, there are nut jobs everywhere... and in the Midwest and far north, they even elect them governor.

Crimson Ghost;588213 wrote:

GO FUCK YOURSELF! I WILL BEAT YOUR MOTHERFUCKIN' ASS

Oh, wait.
I just proved your statement.
Nevermind....

I just said that because I spent many years there and could site numerous examples. :lol:

In Britain, the general population has never had, or wanted, casual access to firearms, they were never commonly available and then restricted. (particlularly handguns, shotguns and rifles for farmers and hunters maybe a bit more common).

The restriction on owning firearms only ever affected a very small fraction on the population, changes in overall violent crime rates would be due to toher factors. IMHO

TheMercenary;588314 wrote:

I just said that because I spent many years there and could site numerous examples. :lol:

Yeah, but I'm one of the milder examples.

I think this is enough .....
I do agree with you. Those are the most effective way

Any of y'awl Southerner types wanna unload y'awl's shotgun on this here spammin varmint?

I live in the south and by way of coincidence the lady who lives next door asked me just this morning about whether southerners are more violent than northerners. So, I shot her.

It doesn't prove anything though.

Henry;600569 wrote:

I live in the south and by way of coincidence the lady who lives next door asked me just this morning about whether southerners are more violent than northerners. So, I shot her.

It doesn't prove anything though.

Because she needed killin'.

Oh, the gunshot didn't kill her. I wanted to see if the irony would.

Henry;600608 wrote:

Oh, the gunshot didn't kill her. I wanted to see if the irony would.

If it was a 5 irony or a 7 irony, it would probably do the trick.

Wood it?


(groan)

Henry;600619 wrote:

Wood it?


(groan)

putz.

[[[GROAN x 100]]]

Wouldn't that be, [[[GROWED x 100]]], down there? :haha:

He's too close to the Mason/Dixon to actually peak the language, Bruce.

My Kentucky grandmother would have said "Lawd ah mercy." "Growed" was what her granbabies did. As in, "I swan chile, you'r gettin biggah ever day."

She never showed much inclination to violence except when it was time for a chicken dinner. I still remember being amazed at the chickens running with their heads cut off. My grand dad just worked the farm. By the end of the day, he was too tired to indulge in any possible violent proclivities.

I think the study was apocryphal. Just some Northerners who still haven't gotten over the War between the States. :eyebrow:

capnhowdy;600731 wrote:

He's too close to the Mason/Dixon to actually peak the language, Bruce.

North Carolina is a fer piece from the Mason-Dixon, that's only 10 miles from me.

Ah reckon yew'd hafta go a fur piece jes t' fine yerself a native suthurner these days. We got us plenny o' yankees (northurners who come a-visitin') and plenny o' damn yankees (northurners who stay), so yew'd have to know th' premise's defnition o' "suthurner".

This 'ere nostrum that suthurners're more vilint, were it true, would hafta emit 'long genetic lines or 'long cultural lines, an' neither pathway be s'portible. Neither th' genetics nor th' culture is anywhars near so eye-so-lated as to allow fer any measurble diffurnce 'tween sutherners 'r northurners. Thar'd have to be some kine a-hard line 'tween th' two, whether yew go with genetic causality or cultural causality, an' thar ain't no such thang yew can point to.

Ah suspect this 'ere notion is jes like SamIAm said, it's apocr... acopryph.. apopic... it's horse-hockey, is whut it is. Sounds t'me like one o' them thar se'f-fo-fillin' predjadishes.

An' that's all ah gots t' say 'bout that.