Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

At an Academic Pressure Cooker, a Setback Turns Deadly

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 62 posts

Re: At an Academic Pressure Cooker, a Setback Turns Deadly

#51

Post by randallsquared »

colah wrote: post #46
randallsquared wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'll notice I said that I mentioned protecting the perpetrator from society... Killing them kind of defeats that. Also, they can't achieve rehabilitation if we kill them. You focus on the single exception I mentioned to a retribution-based system as though I had not mentioned it as an exception at all. Why is that?

Because edge cases and extreme cases often reveal the difference between approaches/strategies/philosophies/ideologies/etc. Our approaches lead us to different conclusions in this case, except for the fact that you look at reality and say that yours shouldn't be applied because in reality mistakes can happen. This is a perfectly valid stance, but it doesn't mean that the point shouldn't be looked at to analyse the di…

it doesn't mean that the point shouldn't be looked at to analyse the differences in our approaches, as this is the most obvious case where they diverge.

Wow, I strongly disagree. Our approaches diverge on virtually every case, as far as I can tell. My approach would be to apply the exact damage to the aggressor that they applied to the victim, except where the victim forgives all or part (for monetary "damages" or some other consideration or reason). If a mistake is made, the same procedure can be used to rectify it. This does mean that completely irrevocable damage (that is, death) can't be applied while keeping the property that mistakes can be fixed or paid for. Murder is already an exceptional situation, not like other crimes of violence, due to its finality.

As far as I can tell, your approach (along with the vast majority of existing legal systems today) requires sentencing or damages to be decided individually by a third party, rather than by the parties already involved, which seems inelegant.

There's also the fact that capital punishment is where this discussion began.

Oh. Well, there is something to be said for staying on topic, I suppose. :)

Re: At an Academic Pressure Cooker, a Setback Turns Deadly

#52

Post by timr »

narag wrote: post #41
timr wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Going postal" is hardly a tactful way of describing that situation. I don't think it's pop psychology to acknowledge that a small percentage of people in extremely stressful situations lose control, and end up doing awful things. It's impossible to have sincere sympathy and respect without a healthy dose of empathy. And to have empathy, you have to be able to acknowledge truths about situations that may not be polit…

...or simply because her superiors were assholes Really? I've had some of this kind, and even when I was in a very stressful personal situation, I've never even thought of resorting to any kind of violence, even less shooting anyone. These cases seem to be caused by mental illness. I agree with the person you're answering to that trying to "explain" a shooting this way is plainly wrong.

Regardless of what you've personally experienced, I would imagine that everyone has a limit, beyond which they lose control of their emotions. It happens.

The question of whether this is called "mental illness" is open for debate. As far as I'm concerned, it's an academic question, unless the distinction can somehow lead to prevention of the act.

Re: At an Academic Pressure Cooker, a Setback Turns Deadly

#53

Post by colah »

randallsquared wrote: post #51
colah wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because edge cases and extreme cases often reveal the difference between approaches/strategies/philosophies/ideologies/etc. Our approaches lead us to different conclusions in this case, except for the fact that you look at reality and say that yours shouldn't be applied because in reality mistakes can happen. This is a perfectly valid stance, but it doesn't mean that the point shouldn't be looked at to analyse the di…

it doesn't mean that the point shouldn't be looked at to analyse the differences in our approaches, as this is the most obvious case where they diverge. Wow, I strongly disagree. Our approaches diverge on virtually every case, as far as I can tell. My approach would be to apply the exact damage to the aggressor that they applied to the victim, except where the victim forgives all or part (for monetary "damages" or so…

>Wow, I strongly disagree. Our approaches diverge on virtually every case, as far as I can tell.

That was a poor wording on my part. Make that where they diverge most strongly.

>My approach would be to apply the exact damage to the aggressor that they applied to the victim, except where the victim forgives all or part (for monetary "damages" or some other consideration or reason).

I'm going to assume your talking about assault. If I'm wrong, sorry. In any case, we can't just let them settle it with a fee to cover damages. The aggressor demonstrated themselves a threat to the Public. Depending on the circumstances, the aggressor will need to spend some time in jail, with a psychologist, doing community service, reporting to a probation officer, et cetra, or most likely a combination of the above, for the protection of society.

If there was material damage in addition to that, it is not a criminal matter and can be settled in the way you described.

>As far as I can tell, your approach (along with the vast majority of existing legal systems today) requires sentencing or damages to be decided individually by a third party, rather than by the parties already involved, which seems inelegant.

As the previous example illustrates, this is only true for criminal matters.

Re: At an Academic Pressure Cooker, a Setback Turns Deadly

#54

Post by colah »

maxharris wrote: post #14
neurotech1 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would suspect Dr Bishop has a personality disorder, such as Borderline Personality Disorder. I find it interesting that they have a 6 year rule, when the average is around 10 years to get tenure. I think that people missed warning signs, that she was feeling stress, and that there is a stigma against seeking help, and people often deny they have a problem. I agree with most of your comments, except the bit about "r…

How do you "recover" from something like this? If I had done something like what she did, and I had full memory of it, I would attempt suicide - not out of some perverse sense of duty, but as a way to escape. (I believe that the soul dies with the body, and that supernatural events are categorically impossible. So when I say "escape", I mean a completely different thing than a religious person would mean.)

She won't make a full recovery, but we can still help her. And I think we have a moral obligation to try.

It wouldn't surprise me if she _is_ suicidal right now.

Re: At an Academic Pressure Cooker, a Setback Turns Deadly

#55

Post by nostrademons »

joe_the_user wrote: post #31
physcab wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the author was applying an explanation either dumbly or trying to reduce its significance. I think it is part of our human nature to try and contain a tragedy by labeling or attributing some cause to it. I'm not a therapist, but I sincerely believe this human trait persists in many people as a coping mechanism. That's why it makes sense (even as an academic myself) in some weird, comforting way.

I think it is part of our human nature to try and contain a tragedy by labeling or attributing some cause to it. Are you implying that tragedies have no cause. It seems like human to try understand tragedies as they are significant part of our human world. Moreover, tragedies usually do have causes. Claiming that there is no cause to an event may serve some psychological purpose...

Tragedies usually have so many causes that it's impossible to point out a single cause in a 3-paragraph comment and have it mean anything.

Usually, if you do a root cause analysis of anything, you come up with so many contributing factors that the resulting document is hundreds of pages long. Think of industrial postmortems or court proceedings. Everything is more complicated than it seems at first.

Saying "This was because she was denied tenure" does a disservice to everyone involved. It was probably partly because she was denied tenure. It was probably partly also because she had easy access to guns, and she was super focused on her research, and she didn't get along with the school administration, and she had once accidentally killed her brother, and plenty of other factors that we could never know about.

Re: At an Academic Pressure Cooker, a Setback Turns Deadly

#56

Post by nostrademons »

randallsquared wrote: post #51
colah wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because edge cases and extreme cases often reveal the difference between approaches/strategies/philosophies/ideologies/etc. Our approaches lead us to different conclusions in this case, except for the fact that you look at reality and say that yours shouldn't be applied because in reality mistakes can happen. This is a perfectly valid stance, but it doesn't mean that the point shouldn't be looked at to analyse the di…

it doesn't mean that the point shouldn't be looked at to analyse the differences in our approaches, as this is the most obvious case where they diverge. Wow, I strongly disagree. Our approaches diverge on virtually every case, as far as I can tell. My approach would be to apply the exact damage to the aggressor that they applied to the victim, except where the victim forgives all or part (for monetary "damages" or so…

Many civilizations have had justice systems that worked exactly like that. "An eye for an eye."

In practice, it doesn't seem to work very well. There's a reason why most legal systems today rely on a third party to enforce justice. Civilizations that don't tend to devolve into a cycle of retributive violence, eg. medieval blood feuds in Italy, duels in the Wild West, and lynchings in the Reconstruction South.

I'm not entirely sure, but I suspect it's because every action you take not only has its material effects, but it's also taken as a statement of how you want the world to be. So if you steal something, you not only have taken the object, but you've declared that you want to live in a world without property rights. If you rape somebody, you haven't only traumatized her, but you've declare that you want to live in a world where sex can be used as a weapon. If you kill somebody, you haven't only taken their life, but you've declared that you want to live in a world where lives can be taken by conscious action.

If someone then does the same thing back at you, they don't just cancel out. Instead, both parties have declared that they want to live in the world where that crime is accepted behavior.

Re: At an Academic Pressure Cooker, a Setback Turns Deadly

#57

Post by randallsquared »

nostrademons wrote: post #56
randallsquared wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it doesn't mean that the point shouldn't be looked at to analyse the differences in our approaches, as this is the most obvious case where they diverge. Wow, I strongly disagree. Our approaches diverge on virtually every case, as far as I can tell. My approach would be to apply the exact damage to the aggressor that they applied to the victim, except where the victim forgives all or part (for monetary "damages" or so…

Many civilizations have had justice systems that worked exactly like that. "An eye for an eye." In practice, it doesn't seem to work very well. There's a reason why most legal systems today rely on a third party to enforce justice. Civilizations that don't tend to devolve into a cycle of retributive violence, eg. medieval blood feuds in Italy, duels in the Wild West, and lynchings in the Reconstruction South. I'm not…

I think there's a difference between relying on a third party to enforce justice (a concept which I have no problem with), and relying on a third party to choose punishment. If the punishment is exactly in kind (by default), then no choice is required. It's only because the sorts of punishments our society uses are completely different in kind from the initial offense that a choice is even necessary, and that same difference means that there's no "right" answer to the question. There's at least some hope of finding a right answer to how much damage was done to someone after having a TV stolen or being beaten. But even knowing how much damage was done, how could you translate that into a given amount of time in prison in any objective fashion? Is a beating "worth" two years or two months in jail? There's no right answer to that question.

In the system I advocate, actual settlements or punishments might vary widely, but as long as the convict always had the option of taking a similar beating to the one he gave the victim, we'd know that the punishment or settlement couldn't be more than warranted. As long as the victim can refuse any proffered settlement in favor of having the default punishment administered, we know that the settlement can't be less than warranted. The "eye for an eye" standard is just a tool for allowing the convict and victim to negotiate a settlement, and I think it would be rarely fully carried out for anything major, if the victim has the option of accepting some amount of money to forgive some or all of the offense.

but it's also taken as a statement of how you want the world to be.

I don't think people who steal a TV would agree that they want to dissolve property rights. They don't want to have stuff stolen from them, only to get away with it themselves. One of the reasons that law is possible is that even thieves want to have their own property protected, and even burglars want to protect their homes from entry by others.

Re: At an Academic Pressure Cooker, a Setback Turns Deadly

#58

Post by nostrademons »

randallsquared wrote: post #57
nostrademons wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many civilizations have had justice systems that worked exactly like that. "An eye for an eye." In practice, it doesn't seem to work very well. There's a reason why most legal systems today rely on a third party to enforce justice. Civilizations that don't tend to devolve into a cycle of retributive violence, eg. medieval blood feuds in Italy, duels in the Wild West, and lynchings in the Reconstruction South. I'm not…

I think there's a difference between relying on a third party to enforce justice (a concept which I have no problem with), and relying on a third party to choose punishment. If the punishment is exactly in kind (by default), then no choice is required. It's only because the sorts of punishments our society uses are completely different in kind from the initial offense that a choice is even necessary, and that same di…

They don't want to have stuff stolen from them, only to get away with it themselves.

But whether or not they want to have stuff stolen from them, that's the message they're sending to the rest of the world. Hell, your proposal enshrines that into law.

It's like the observation I saw a while back on HN: People judge themselves by their intentions, but they judge others by their actions. It doesn't matter whether they intend to send the message that they don't think property rights are worthwhile, that's the message that will be inferred. And if both the criminals and the government agree on that message - what will the citizens think?

Re: At an Academic Pressure Cooker, a Setback Turns Deadly

#59

Post by randallsquared »

nostrademons wrote: post #58
randallsquared wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there's a difference between relying on a third party to enforce justice (a concept which I have no problem with), and relying on a third party to choose punishment. If the punishment is exactly in kind (by default), then no choice is required. It's only because the sorts of punishments our society uses are completely different in kind from the initial offense that a choice is even necessary, and that same di…

They don't want to have stuff stolen from them, only to get away with it themselves. But whether or not they want to have stuff stolen from them, that's the message they're sending to the rest of the world. Hell, your proposal enshrines that into law. It's like the observation I saw a while back on HN: People judge themselves by their intentions, but they judge others by their actions. It doesn't matter whether they…

Your argument seems to be that people cannot tell the difference between offense and defense. I don't think that's the case, but I don't have a coherent argument against it at the moment.

Re: At an Academic Pressure Cooker, a Setback Turns Deadly

#60

Post by Eliezer »

scott_s wrote: post #49
Eliezer wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, most people do. The official term is cognitive dissonance, and the unofficial term is sour grapes.

There is a difference between sour grapes and rationally deciding that your prior goal has no value.

How odd, you'd think they could have figured it out before trying and failing, then.
Post reply on HN