Slashdot Mirror
Police Training Lacks Scientific Input
An anonymous reader writes: Police have been under a microscope over the past year for their involvement in some high-profile shootings. We've heard over and over that police need more and better training to keep these incidents from happening, but the truth is that there's no good framework within law enforcement to base their training on actual science. Officers tend to teach from their own experience, and research into techniques for dealing with unpredictable people goes widely unnoticed. "Carl Bell, a psychologist at the University of Illinois at Chicago who has done key work on de-escalation with the mentally ill, said his attempts to introduce techniques to the Chicago police never got anywhere. 'There's no systematic incorporation of research.'" Nobody expects officers to consult an academic journal when they're facing down a hostile suspect, but science needs to be part of conversation we're having.
Most cops have a highschool education why do you expect them to read or even cate about scientific papers?
Why assume the average cop is even interested in deescalation?
training costs more than the taxpayers are willing to be taxed.
Having a missing front license plate, a broken tail light, being deaf, or being mentally ill have all become death penalty offenses.
Set up by Obama's Justice Dept. of course!
Clearly the problem is more training, not, y'know the APCs or the military hardware or the flagrant disregard for life with current operational procedure (which seems to change depending on the wealth / demographic makeup of the neighborhood.)
I don't understand how your system works in the US but from an outsiders view through your media it seems like not much has changed since the 1960s (well, other than small town police seem to be better armed than the national guard was back then)
>> training costs more than the taxpayers are willing to be taxed
I doubt it. In fact, many local universities and other institutions are happy to donate this training. Furthermore, grants from our current federal justice department exist for exactly this kind of thing (under "community policing" etc.)
However, many of the tactics used to "deescalate" situations or reduce the amount of force police use also put police officers at higher risk for harm. (e.g., pausing to wait for the suspect to do something may allow them to draw or use a weapon, wrestling with a suspect instead of using a taser gives the suspect a chance to bite, stab, punch at close contact, etc.) These measures aren't popular with unions concerned first and foremost with their members' health and well-being.
e.g., http://www.policeforum.org/ass...
It's no secret the police are a bunch of idiots that are barely able to write a sentence by themselves. Now you expect them to actually use their brains? C'mon...
Why deescalate when you can just kill with impunity? After all dead people are pretty deescalted, right?
The cops there are a bit more civilized. They can take down people without killing them. If you want 'science', look closely at the kind of people who want to be cops. Try to find some that don't relish the power so much. The rest are just a bunch a classroom bullies. We should not be rewarding this behavior. And we need to disallow all the secrecy. We have to force open the books to ensure compliance. The cops here are problem because we treat them with excessive deference in an appeal to their authority. We need to remind them and the politicians that they are public servants.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Be careful not to over-optimize for the general case, or you'll lose intuition and you'll lose the benefit of police who are more successful doing things "their own way" than "the way that works for most police officers."
If Joe Officer is an excellent officer but he's not quite "normal" (maybe he's a bit autism-spectrum or way more able to pick up on facial cues than the average cop) telling him "do it the way the scientists tell us is the best way for the average cop or you'll be fired [because if we don't fire you and something goes wrong we'll be sued into bankruptcy]" means turning an excellent cop into an average cop or worse, losing him altogether if he quits in frustration.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
As a valued member of the law enforcement community it pains me to see the lack of independent investigation into our scientific process. Several books have been published in the past 30 years including such titles as 'fundamentals of systemic mass incarceration' and 'scientific process for falsifying evidence during a confrontation in which an overwhelming disproportionate level of force was applied.' These titles are all extremely technical...quite academic you see. So perhaps I shall refer the layman to such titles as 'metal batons, the musical!' and 'chokeholds, the happy urban handshake.' My personal favourite is 'civil forfeiture and the vacation to maui'
Good people go to bed earlier.
Police Officers will react exactly as they have been trained.
Some decades ago, a police agency in the south came up with "better" firearms training. They installed moving targets. The Officer would wait until the target began moving right to left, or vice-versa, and only then were they allowed to fire. Months of this "improved" training.
An Officer responded to a armed robbery call and, per training, parked not near the door, but some distance away. As the bad guy ran out the door of the business, the Officer fired at the moving target. As the store manager ran out the door chasing the bad guy, the Officer fired at the moving target.
I'm just saying that the training must be carefully thought through because that's how officers will respond. In fast situations Police don't evaluate and respond, they react.
Walter Peck: "If he does that again, you can shoot him."
Police Captain: "You do your job, pencil neck. Don't tell me how to do mine!"
Over the decades they have learned that they are right 1% of the time and 99% of the time there is no negative feedback for being wrong.
We liberals want to fix the reasons why said person felt necessary to commit that crime in the first place.
Usually it's drug addiction and in our Puritanical society that considers such things as the exclusive result of poor character (ignoring the European research that shows it is quite more complex than that; although, developing character is a component to recovery: see Focus 12's plan for an example of different approaches), our attitude is just lock them up - even though it has been shown in England that for every pPound spent on recovery , over three is saved by the economy in general. But we uptight Americans can't stomach that in our law and order society.
Yes. If you've taken food because you're hungry you should not go to jail.
Most Police Academies in the US take 6 months or less to complete. How in earth can you expect policemen to learn to act accordingly in all circumstances and know the law as well in that short amount of time. They need to be physically fit, know how to operate their weapons, know the law, have the psychological insight to act accordingly in any situation, know how to file any type of police report, get driving classes, know a bit about the different sciences involved in drugs, crime scenes etc... It's just impossible really and usually comes down to having good old fashioned common sense to be a good cop.
What I want is for cops to be psychic and know exactly what the person they're confronting will do so that they can use force exactly commensurate with the requirements of the situation.
Of course we both know that's not going to happen, so I'll settle for second best choices like not confronting people when no crime has been committed (eg arresting people for "resisting arrest" when no crime is being committed and no warrant for arrest exists therefore no arrest should be being made in order to be resisted), or ordering people to cease lawful activity (lacking a law against smoking in your own car, there is no grounds to order someone to stop smoking or threaten to light them up for not throwing away their cigarette).
Here are some simple steps to fixing the problem, no science needed.
Cops could care less about an individuals rights, health or safety.
They basically look at some nut job or perp as a problem that will reoccur.
If they just kill the person then the problem is permanently solved.
This is such a non-issue. Basic de-escalation techniques are well known and easy to teach, and more importantly, easy to use. It doesn't take rocket-science to know that profiling, loud order barking and throwing people down and asking questions later ISN'T the way to go. The real problem seems to be that the hiring process is letting people with personalities who shouldn't be cops become cops. This isn't a profession that should except muscles over brains people who's ego will be built upon the power of the position. We don't need muscle-bourd Eric Cartman-types yelling RESPECT MY AUTHORITY.
I think part of the problem is that police forces hire "criminal justice" majors. These are folks who were attracted to police work BEFORE they went to college. I think they tend to be those to whom authority over others is attractive. They don't necessarily like people but they do like power over people. And they think that a badge will guarantee them respect. The low salary should be a clue that this is not true. But they demand respect from citizens they interact with. Look at the Sandra Bland cop who decided to arrest her because she would not put out her cigarette in her own car. Something she was under no obligation to do. But he did not like her "tone" because she was not respecting him.
So instead, hire cops from among graduates in sociology and anthropology. These are folks who want to understand behavior. And that's the most important training there is for a cop. Training in "law enforcement" and weapons can happen after they are hired. First get the right people in the job.
The best cop is a sociologist who knows the law and how to use a gun. Not a gun slinger who may or may not understand people and the law.
"He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
I am hungry. Please post you home address so I can raid your fridge. Thanks.
doesn't exist. Only wisdom actually taught to everyone can - sadly that's rare.
europe has better training. being a police officer in europe is a much more highly professional attitude with much more rigorous training
http://www.quora.com/How-do-UK...
also, like europe, and i'll try not to completely derail the conversation, but no one should get a gun in the usa without rigorous training first, including testing and ongoing inspections. exactly like we do with getting a drivers license and a car. same level of responsibility, same standards, right?
without so many easy guns in he hands of idiots, cops are less jumpy
"if guns are outlawed, only outlaws..." actually, when guns are harder to get, the kind of casual hothead that causes all the mayhem with guns simply doesn't get a gun and reaches for a knife instead. *casual* hotheads are not trying hard in life, they will not try hard to get a gun, ti takes too much effort in a serious society. and a knife is far less lethal, so homicide rates drop
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
so the "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws..." is a propaganda lie
besides, we're not even talking about "outlawing" guns. we're talking about rigorous training which every responsible gun owner already agrees with and complies with. so what is the problem exactly? why is this country held hostage by a paranoid schizophrenic fringe on the issue of guns? most gun *owners* agree with what i am saying
yes, the criminal masterminds will still get illegal guns. and use them wisely and surgically: criminal *masterminds*. so again, no ridiculous mayhem. we're talking about the casual hothead that is thwe problem here. he should not get a gun easily, like he currently does in the usa
a responsible gun owner knows the seriousness of a gun and really has no problem insisting everyone get good training
anyway, with less easy guns getting easily in the hands of hot heads cops have less reason to be so jumpy with their own guns. the change won't be immediate, it will take awhile to drain the swamp of easy guns
as if that is somehow an argument not to drain the swamp, because the right thing is hard to do and will take time is never an argument against doing the right thing
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Seems to me that the current actions of the Police are a direct response to the social sentiments of the last 30 years, starting with the "Tough on Crime" political drum beat throughout the 80s, the constant barrage of Cop shows that depict "loose cannon above the law shoot through the red tape good guy cop not afraid to violate some civil liberties and pass death sentences to save us all" and the constant online postings of "Good -- save us the cost of a trial and jail".
Considering how we glorify murdering maniacs with badges in this country and love to see extra-judicial justice meted out -- why the fuck is anyone shocked at all?
In fact why aren't you celebrating this?? Isn't this what you wanted?
As noted in the article cited, a definition of community policing is hard to come by. Can you have "scientific research" on community policing without defined goal(s)? Whose goals? Government? Union? Citizens?
I suggest that no training that teaches officers to fear, and to rapidly use up their supplies, is worth any taxpayer funding. Is "research" needed for this?
Given that social science studies are notoriously bad, why do we think things would be any better if we used "science" in police training?
We'd probably be better off if we made some structural changes, like limiting qualified immunity and requiring all interactions with the public and accused to be videotaped.
The quickest way to better police officers is to have better civilians.
These interactions are between one side that is supposed to follow a set of rules, and another that doesn't. That second side also knows this and will exploit it.
"better training to keep these incidents from happening,"
depends--all I hear about is training to prevent officers in "proper use of their weapons" instead of training officers "to handle a situation appropriately (de-escalation)". Big difference. Former is aggressive behavioural training, the latter is more passive. And we know what officers are bias towards.
I have an aquaintance that is a master of martial arts. He's worked as a bouncer for decades in some very tough bars. He's also worked within the criminal system in various capacities dealing with some of the most violent offenders. He also happens to have multiple degrees in psychology and counselling. His attitude towards martial arts and training is very scientific: screw tradition--use what works, change or discard what doesn't. After hundreds of altercations spanning across decades he is extremely capable of both reading crowds, people, diffusing situations with mere conversation, and applying physical resolutions when no alternatives remain.
Over the years he's worked with many LEOs, spec ops. and other "highly trained" men. He's taught only a few of them a thing or two--only the ones that were willing to admit that they didn't know everything and actually *wanted* to improve their trade craft. Over the years he's been asked to consult with various policed departments, and in his experience, most officers are so egotistical, thinking "what could I possibly learn from a civilian" that they just don't care to even try. To his dismay, most don't even *want* to learn better martial arts--despite the fact that their chosen line of work will put them into situations where it very well could save their life. In his experience most of them, including their trainers, think that they have it all figured out and there is nothing more to learn, and that what they teach is the best information and training possible--and yet he has repeatedly demonstrated to them how easily he can overpower them and how useless many of their training ideas are.
Current practices in many respects of their training is actually teaching them to do things that put them into positions of greater risk.
A simple example is how officers currently wear their guns canted forwards. Have you ever asked why? It makes drawing the gun much, *much* slower requiring difficult mechanics in the shoulder. The answer is simple--they want to be able to also draw their gun while seated in their car. So, for the off chance that they may need to draw from seated in their car, say a 0.5% chance of need, they severely weaken their 99.5% need to draw quickly in any other scenario. To handle the seated case, they could just use a cross draw or have a weapon mounted for easy reach on their dash or console.
Clearly we don't have the best minds at work here.
The fact that there is still no official, nationwide, legally-required (upon pain of zero Fed cash for anything) system to record and disseminate statistics of all LEO-involved violence up to and including deaths (or more accurately: murder by cop of minorities) by every method is not just a casual mistake.
This is also why social (mobile) media is so despised by the LEO crowd: it exposes their abuses to world, where in the 'good old days', well who *wouldn't* believe Officer Bob's statements that he 'had no choice' and 'felt threatened' by that no good Nig^h^h^h thug.
they're more willing to pay huge lawsuits?
You know, this reminds me that there are police departments with, at any given time, a dozen or so improper use of force lawsuits against them, tens of millions in payouts a year, the department essentially treating said lawsuits like a cost of doing business(costs the city money, not them, not even their budget). Then there are neighboring cities/precincts that actually do their job correctly, DON'T kill a half a dozen or so people improperly every year, where ONE such lawsuit would be unusual.
We don't so much have a bad officer problem in the USA, we have a bad police department problem. The 10% worst departments are responsible for a lot more than 90% of our problems with police.
Responsible departments get rid of or reform 'bad egg' officers rather rapidly. Bad departments encourage them. See Sheriff Arpaio.
I don't read AC A human right
Huh? I think it's pretty safe to assume EVERY police officer, average or not, is ALWAYS interested in de-escalating a dangerous situation.
You're not a minority are you? There are PLENTY of police who are the ones doing the escalating. One merely has to examine the data on excessive use of force by police and you will quickly understand that cops are NOT always interested in de-escalation.
If people would only do the scientific thing and shut the fuck up and not talk to the police, ever, they would need much better police officers.
Yes. If you've taken food because you're hungry you should not go to jail.
I would tend to agree with this, but we would have to think of how to financially support the businesses as they would be the ones having to pay for the service of feeding the hungry. However, the vast, vast majority of people who steal things are not doing it because they are hungry. They are doing it because they want stuff, or they need stuff to pawn so they can get drugs.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
I don't think this is realistic. You really can't blame people for wanting to protect their own lives.
Sure I can. They signed up voluntarily for the duty. "Protect and serve". That means it is their job to get in harms way when necessary to protect the community and enforce the laws. I'm not saying they have to be stupid about it but their job should be to protect others first.
People who choose to sacrifice themselves for others are lauded because what they've done is extraordinary, heroic, above and beyond what can reasonably be expected. You're saying that we should expect extraordinary heroism.
No. What we should expect police to not behave like they are in a war zone. What we should expect is for them to actually try to save the lives of others. We expect them to behave like they belong in civilized society and not brutalize the people they are supposed to protect.
If you demand that police de-prioritize their own safety, they won't last long because their job does regularly place them in dangerous situations
Police work is demonstrably not as dangerous as many other professions. Jobs that are more dangerous incude: Truck driver, farming, construction worker, airline pilot, taxicab drivers, timber cutters, roofers, fishermen, structural metal workers and electricians. All of those professions have higher fatality rates than police officers. Injuries? Cops don't even make the list. While nobody would argue that police work doesn't have risk, the risks are overblown and in many cases caused by the very actions of the police themselves.
I'm not making that fatuous old claim that being a police officer is an extraordinarily dangerous job -- but the only reason it isn't extraordinarily dangerous is because officers are allowed to put their own safety first.
It's only extraordinarily dangerous if they are stupid about it. Gearing up like they are going to war is tantamount to picking a fight with their community. Their own actions are provocative and puts them in greater danger. Nobody is asking them to jump in front of a bullet. Use of force by police in the US is WAY higher than in other parts of the world. They use force because they can, not because they have to.
Cops aren't going to be psychic, obviously, but what we see in the U.S. right now goes beyond basic mistakes into the areas of arrogance and bad training.
Take the case of Eric Garner. I am still confused how anyone could take his actions as "resisting arrest" enough to warrant any type of force, let alone potentially deadly force. The talking heads on TV saw that as "resisting" when I, a reasonable person (I think), saw it as totally unjustified. That seems to be a training deficiency.
What about the recent death of teenager where witnesses saw the cops "high fiveing" the corpse? That's arrogance or worse.
I think it takes getting rid of the bad seeds that flock the law enforcement who want to be Eric Cartman and finding the right psychological profiles that fit the job. However its reactionaries that get drawn into law enforcement. The people that really want to help end up being social workers or the like.
How many people can a dead cop protect?
I don't think anyone's asking them to jump in front of a bullet. Though they are generally wearing body armor so they are better equipped than you or me. But their right to personal safety is not without bounds and they cannot do their job without accepting some risk. They signed up for the job and they knew it was risky. They don't have to be stupid about it but if someone is in danger I absolutely expect them to make reasonable efforts to help even if that involves some amount of risk to themselves. If they want a completely safe job they should have done something else.
A police officer's FIRST duty is to keep themselves alive so they can uphold the law and protect as many people as feasible.
If that were true a lot more people would have died on 9/11 than actually did. Fire fighters and cops ran TOWARDS danger and saved lives which did protect as many people as possible. A police officer's first duty is supposed to be to the people they serve. If they are not willing to accept any risk to their own well being then they should pick another profession.
You need to punish those in law WITH MORE RIGOUR and harsher judgement than you do the ordinary person who did those things.
The cops who killed those people? Especially the chokehold death and the little kid, but anyone NOT ARMED? Do them for murder. Chair option open. EVEN IF it would be considered manslaughter or a lesser murder charge, put it at the top there.
Oh, and you blathering on about how bad unions are, bollocks. Even if there were no union whatsoever (and their union is severely limited in what action they can take, so barely a union at all, really just group negotiation power), the cops would get away with it because prosecutors and attorney generals need the cops on their side or they will not get any help from the cops. Fuck all to do with the union. It's about the discretion police have for lying, by omission or flat out lies, with the presumption that they are telling the truth in a court of law (and, indeed, in the general public, as far as MSM is concerned).
Kill an unarmed person? Killed by the numbers. Watch cops think before pulling a gun then.
Just because someone is acting against the law doesn't mean they're unpredictable or mentally ill.
Literally, fuck science. Cops need to trust their instincts, not some beaker pusher or head shrink.
If you cant handle the job without whipping your gun out and shooting or taking your tazer or baton out and disabling people for *putting their hands up and then behind their back so you can arrest them* then fucking get out.
Become a farmer.
And discover what it's like in a REALLY dangerous job, but one where nobody knows about it or cares.
Do I smell bacon?
Let's not forget that having a high IQ precludes you from becoming a cop in the first place. They don't want thinkers, they want drones that toe the line.
I helped set up a prison facility for exactly that problem. The only inmates in this minimum security / pre-release center were those whose only crimes were drug-related, stealing to support a substance abuse habit. The inmates were kept away from regular criminals (completely different facility, miles away from any other corrections facility) and given treatment for their substance abuse problems. We had a less than one percent repeat offense rate.
If anyone in corrections is reading this, please contact the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Corrections and ask about the Longwood Correctional facility. It worked so well that I hope to see this success repeated in other states and countries.
Except 99% of the time it's not the cop that starts off being confrontational, it's some idiot wailing about their right to speed...
I'm sure you're right about that, but officers are supposed to keep their cool and de-escalate the situation.
Here is something to think about: US police officers typically have 3-4 months training, police officers in Norway and Denmark have ~3 years training.
Sure, crime rates and access to guns have a major effect on police shootings, but training is a major part of what enables officers to remain calm and polite in the midst of a struggle.
Here is a video of off-duty Swedish police officers breaking up a fight on the NY subway: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I wonder how many cops take steroids, and whether 'roid rage is a factor in shootings. Or any other drugs for that matter. Drug testing for police is woefully lacking. http://www.quora.com/How-often...
>> training costs more than the taxpayers are willing to be taxed
I doubt it. In fact, many local universities and other institutions are happy to donate this training.
Donated training probably won't work at that scale... Police officers in Norway and Denmark (just to mention two places) have ~ 3 years training.
How much does US police officers have? (I read that it's typically 3-4 months various places online).
To get proper police training you probably need a police academy dedicated to the job, not a bunch of ad-hoc training sessions donated...
Also de-escalation is often just about remaining calm, acting in a calm and orderly fashion while a crazy suspects yell at you. Or showing concern for suspects well-being once handcuffed. Largely it's about communication before things escalate to a point where you even consider applying force; reducing the risk that the officer ends up in a violent conflict. And it's about remaining calm while force is applied, reducing risk that suspects panic and suspect's willingness to fight back.
But, this was after the officer said I "must have enemies" and that was why I was scared of some random car flashing lights at me, and that even in other states, I should have known that car had a police officer in it.
Just as a note, I've lived in 7 states. In NONE of them would I assume that a somebody flashing their high beams at me while following like police officers like to do is a cop or has good intentions.
I don't read AC A human right
We liberals want to fix the reasons why said person felt necessary to commit that crime in the first place.
"I liked his shoes. My government check wouldn't buy shoes like that. So i took his shoes. I don't know why he shot himself in the back." -Product of government handouts.
Liberal deduction: Buy everyone nicer shoes with tax dollars and crime will reduce
Conservative deduction: The shoes are irrelevant. Jackhole would have shot victim in the back for any reason. Jackhole needs to learn some pride in earning what he gets instead of just being a societal parasite.
captcha: redneck. That's offensive.
My understanding from the liberal media, and corporate thugs that are destroying the USA is that scientific thought is just a clever euphemism for racist white thoughts. I have also been told that I must abolish science and it's inherent unconscious white bias from my mental programming. I must replace the power of science with the power of Hip-Hop. Me must use Hip Hop to train our police forces. A nation of Hip Hop trained police officers will create a synergistic harmonious earth that will allow all peoples to flourish, while not subjugating the black man. Yes instead of police acadamies, we need to create hip hop acadamies. Hip Hop can provide the collective communal values that will rescue our cities out of the morass they have become.
I thought liberals in US are people that dispense bullets liberally?
If they are, you need to disband them: you're already paying a shitload on one army already. And you're not supposed to be at war with your own citizens.
Nope, nowhere near the number of 99% is not the cop. 99% of the time *the cop claims* they started it. But based on the views of cameras of police actions where they STILL claimed "he was reaching for his gun" or "she lashed out at me with her cigarette", it was shown to be complete and utter bollocks.
It's mostly the cops fucking things up.
You mean it's easier to police a monoethnic country that lacks a permenant black welfare underclass beset by illegitimacy and failing inner city union schools?
Do tell...
I had a cop write me up for speeding and tell me to put my cigarette out. I threw it on the ground. He told me to pick it up. I told him he could pick it up and use it as evidence for my littering ticket. He did and I did pay the fines without contesting them.
How I did not get an OUI that night is beyond me. I really should have gone to jail. I was strung right out, almost drooling on myself and driving. Oddly, I was in Georgia at the time. I was on the circle that goes around the city, multi-lane highway - I forgot the route number, and had just shot up (while driving) not long before that.
I never did get an OUI. I never did kill anyone or even have an accident that I was found at fault for. I have pissed off a number of cops but none has beaten me to a pulp yet. I have lots of cop stories but it would take too long to share them all.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
This book by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson has a huge chapter devoted to "mistakes" done on purpose by Police.
Policemen are typically trained that once they have a "probable cause" they push, deceive and trick people into confession, regardless if other facts may completely change the cause into improbable. They act just like in the movies where "greater good" is more important than trampling the truth, except in movies it's usually shown as fully justified, while in real life there is too many mistakes.
"He must be guilty because he was sentenced" and other cognitive issues are aplenty.
People with mental issues should be unemployable as police or security officers.
Timothy Loehmann, who shot Tamir Rice, simply joined police force in a different city after he resigned facing termination for "emotional instability".
The other thing that should not be allowed to happen is the militarization of police force.
Neither through pumping surplus military weapons and equipment through billion dollar "reutilization programs", nor through military tactics and training.
It's Special Weapons and Tactics, not POLICE weapons and tactics.
If all your cops act or look like SWAT teams do... That's not policing crime.
That's a country/state/county/city trying to control its citizens through "superior force".
And police will get BOTH military tactics and training AND mentally unstable police officers when it starts dipping into the pool of military veterans, coming home from a decade or so of war.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens