Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer • Hacker News Board

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#61

Post by pdog » Sun, Jul 22, 2012, 2:10 PM UTC

"Resist the temptation to extrapolate details prematurely into a whole."

The author of this article spent a decade researching the Columbine tragedy[1]. Here, he's describing how readily mass tragedies and shooting sprees lend themselves to misinformation by the media and mythologizing by the public. We can think of the perpetrators as always being loner outcasts, but the effort to make sense of their motives isn't that simple. They might be clinical psychopaths or suicidal depressives or paranoid narcissists or something else.

[1] - http://www.columbine-online.com/

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#62

Post by leot » Sun, Jul 22, 2012, 2:11 PM UTC

kiba wrote: post #39

objclxt wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it is clear at all that "Columbine-like shooting are an American phenomenon". The UK has had several massacres where in each case over a dozen were killed with no apparent motive (Dunblane in 1996, Cumbira in 2010), and there have been several smaller scale incidents along similar lines. The same is true in other countries around the world - I'm just citing those I'm most familiar with. The US certainly…

The US certainly has a higher frequency of apparently motiveless mass murders, but I think it is fairly certain that this is due to easy access to weapons. Someone who is mentally unbalanced is probably going to kill fewer people with a knife before being stopped than with a gun. In Japan, one mass murderer kills 8 Japanese schoolchildren with a knife. In another incident, a mass murderer kills 3 people with a truck…

The amount of determination required to do that much killing with a knife would have had its effects amplified by the ready availability of a gun.

You think some person with a handgun would stand much of a chance against someone in body armor with an assault rifle?

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#63

Post by kiba » Sun, Jul 22, 2012, 2:12 PM UTC

_delirium wrote: post #23

scotty79 wrote: post #8

I think of the murderers as having some kind of hardware bug. We have evolved special safeguard that prevents us form killing the people we live with and people we meet daily. It's crazy that we do live in proximity of other people and meet them if you think how dangerous single person can be when this safeguard fails. All the search for reasons why the person killed is little bit like creating fake narratives to kin…

Do you mean murders in general, or only these spectacle-type spree murders? It seems like much of the discussion is trying to generalize about murder based on these very rare spree killings, but imo it'd be more productive to look at where we have a lot more data, even if it's less spectacular. It's very unusual for someone to shoot up a school or a movie theatre, but it is not, alas, particularly unusual to "[kill]…

There are 12,000 annual murder in a population of 300,000 million. The hardware bug is pretty rare in the first place.

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#64

Post by tokenadult » Sun, Jul 22, 2012, 2:15 PM UTC

From the submitted article: "At this very moment, the police have probably gathered a great deal of evidence from James Holmes. They may well have a clear read on his motives right now. It is vital that they share this information fully with the public, but just as vital that they conceal much or all of it while they conduct their investigation. Testimony from friends, family and survivors of the massacre is also crucial, and witnesses are highly suggestible. Information must be withheld in the short run to safeguard corrupting their stories."

This should be ROUTINE practice in police investigations, to guard against corruption of witness testimony, but, alas, we all know counterexamples. Moreover, it is a professional ethics violation for prosecutors to make excessively detailed statements to the press (who are always willing to ask for as many details as they can get) about the course of an investigation in progress and about possible motives for a crime when the accused has not yet been put on trial. The principle of "innocent until proven guilty" is STILL important, despite many cases we can observe where it appears to be violated.

The human mind leaps to supposing explanations and forming a narrative around new, disturbing events. The mind is a "belief engine"

http://www.amazon.com/The-Believing-Brain-Conspiracies-How-C...

and all of us would like to get an answer, even a quick and dirty answer that may be flat wrong, rather than have unanswered questions about a shocking news story. I remember well the speculation that swirled around the Columbine High School shootings some years ago. I was active in a different online community then, and a bunch of programmers were unembarrassed about going beyond the limits of their occupational knowledge to endorse various hypotheses about why the shooters killed their classmates. Right now we don't know why James Eagan Holmes shot movie-goers, evidently planning well in advance to kill many strangers. I'm not going to speculate about it.

The public-health perspective on violence reduction is interesting, because it doesn't depend on knowing much about the motives of individuals. The theory is that certain risk-reduction measures work in general, minimizing the chance that some individual will engage in any kind of incident like the one in Aurora, Colorado. Gun control is such a sensitive issue in the United States that it is barely being discussed yet by politicians in connection with the incident this weekend, but differing national patterns of gun control have been mentioned by commentators who point to the example of Australia's response to the 1996 Port Arthur, Tasmania shooting

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/20/opinion/donohue-gun-contro...

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8502957/smaller-risk-of-...

as the right way to reduce risk of further mass shooting incidents. That's food for thought. So far I am not aware of any reason for young people in residential neighborhoods in the United States to have what are called "assault rifles" for legitimate purposes, and I certainly would be glad to know that none are in my (crime-free) neighborhood.

First edit: I see other Hacker News commenters are picking up on the submitted article's author's remarks on depression. This may be overgeneralizing too much from one example, even though the author also refers to a Secret Service study of the small number of examples of school shooters studied to that time. I think the author's most accurate point on that issue is "A vast majority of depressives are a danger only to themselves."

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#65

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Jul 22, 2012, 2:15 PM UTC

olalonde wrote: post #54

[deleted] wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

I'm not sure the "middle class individuals who turn out to be lunatics calling them self the Joker or trench coat mafia" in Brazil and Columbia have the necessary street smarts and contacts to buy assault rifles from the black market so easily. Furthermore, as access to guns is a factor amongst many others, it would be more useful to compare the US with countries more culturally and economically closer like the UK, A…

[deleted]

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#66

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Jul 22, 2012, 2:16 PM UTC

nodemaker wrote: post #31

paraschopra wrote: post #27

I'm getting convinced about an interesting new theory on free will. Our free will isn't exactly "free", and is not certainly a conscious act. What we will is determined by the genetic predispositions and a historical interaction of the self with environment. This creates a feedback loop and the self takes one of the trajectories for which it is NOT responsible. Yet, the consequences of the actions are faced by the se…

This is certainly true of animals, but we as human beings do have the power to control the direction of the feedback loop.In other words we have the ability to decide how we respond to external stimuli, a truly unique ability in the animal kingdom. "Man is not fully conditioned and determined but rather determines himself whether he gives in to conditions or stands up to them. In other words, man is ultimately self-d…

[deleted]

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#67

Post by bmac27 » Sun, Jul 22, 2012, 2:17 PM UTC

"Of course they’re sad; they’ve probably gone their entire day getting berated relentlessly, by the single person in the world whose opinion they hold most dear — themselves."

This is the most important part of the article.

All of us to some degree have wrestled with negative self-talk in our lives; a feeling of not liking yourself or just not being “good enough.” For some, it can be a steady, continuous feedback loop that’s difficult to break. I’ve wrestled with it myself. For me, it takes the form of the “imposter phenomenon” and it becomes more pronounced when I’m in groups of smarter people or when I perceive there to be particularly more at stake than normal situations. “What are you doing here, you’re not smart enough, how did you get this job, you’re not good enough to run a successful startup etc.” In the past, it’s caused me to freeze up, have trouble articulating what I want to get across or (worst of all) escape the situation entirely. As I’ve gotten closer & closer to where I want to be as it relates to the startup ecosystem and my place in it, that inner voice has gotten louder. So I can certainly relate to that aspect of it. It’s a battle that’s fought anew every day.

And sometimes it does manifest itself in a more social context, e.g. “nobody cares about me, etc.” which can also be difficult to quell, particularly for someone who’s more of an introvert at heart. Left unchecked, I can clearly see how that can get the better of someone and send them down a destructive path, although I still think to take that anger and push it back out to society in such a violent way requires a synapse somewhere else misfiring.

It's a good reminder that external stimuli alone aren't usually to blame for negative, depressing feelings.

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#68

Post by olalonde » Sun, Jul 22, 2012, 2:19 PM UTC

[deleted] wrote: post #65

olalonde wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure the "middle class individuals who turn out to be lunatics calling them self the Joker or trench coat mafia" in Brazil and Columbia have the necessary street smarts and contacts to buy assault rifles from the black market so easily. Furthermore, as access to guns is a factor amongst many others, it would be more useful to compare the US with countries more culturally and economically closer like the UK, A…

[deleted]

I guess we would have to first settle the debate of whether shootings are a more strongly American phenomenon. I tried to do a bit of Googling and couldn't find a satisfying answer.

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#69

Post by agravier » Sun, Jul 22, 2012, 2:22 PM UTC

paraschopra wrote: post #57

agravier wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although interesting, it's not a particularly new theory. I advise you to read some philosophy. Modern philosophers will agree with you that the concept of free will poses many issues and contradictions. Among those alive, you could consult Kane, and for classical philosophers, you could read Steiner. Although, your own judgement should ultimately be drawn from neuroscience as well (using your free will ;)

Yes, I meant a new theory for me. I was undecided about free will (I still am to a large extent) but this idea is quite appealing. But it has interesting consequences on crime and morality. If science would agree to this version of the theory, why isn't punishment or imprisonment getting banned? Isn't training and coaching (exposure to different ideas) a better way to "cure" people than executing them?

Indeed, what you say makes sense. _If_ we know how to "cure" those people. That's one big if, but I agree that (in general) society should do all what is possible to understand the human behavior and brain.

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#70

Post by eatitraw » Sun, Jul 22, 2012, 2:23 PM UTC

rauljara wrote: post #49

"Psychologists describe depression as anger turned inward." Correction: Freud described depression as anger turned inwards. Specifically, he described anger at external forces (your mother, etc.) turned inwards. In his view, the only way to get rid of depression would be to allow this anger to express itself against the actual external force. This is very, very far away from the majority view of modern psychology (wh…

Good point, his description of depression doesn't really match with what I was told by a person who was diagnosed with depression.

Actually, this tiny bit of the article makes me skeptical about its whole content. "Complicated"? - highly likely, but I think the author probably underestimate the real complexity.