Live data from Hacker News

Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

nytimes.com

221–230 of 249 posts

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> " Unless someone without emotions is somehow incapable of picking random numbers." My wife once suffered from a mental illness that nerfed her emotions. I noticed her once, standing immobile in the kitchen. She'd been there for about 5 minutes. She wanted to make a peanut butter sandwich, but couldn't decide whether to get the knife or the bread first. Someone without emotions is incapable of caring enough to make…

This is legitimately interesting but in the end it's very much away from the original point. Okay, caring/having motivation matters immensely. Even if you practice and learn logical prioritizing you still need to care enough to implement it. You won't get anything done if you see no problem with sitting still for hours on end. But almost all other emotions can be ignored. When people talk about making decisions witho…

> "When people talk about making decisions without emotion they mean [list]"

This is exactly the kind of point-missing people engage in when they talk about decisions or rational thought without emotion. They recognize how some emotions can be distracting, without recognizing how some emotions (even the same ones) can be extremely useful. They say things like "almost all other emotions can be ignored" because they don't have a good grasp of what "almost all other emotions" are or the role they take in cognition.

Emotions like surprise, curiosity, and frustration are incredibly useful for rational thought -- they help you realize that some particular line of inquiry is worth pursuing. Emotions make you care about getting something right, or finding a hidden answer, or solving a mystery. Emotions can positively or negatively affect your level of attentiveness, as well as memory formation. Even supposedly bad emotions like anger can serve to focus your attention on "high value" problems (problems often get solved because people are angry or annoyed enough to direct their energy to solving them.)

You actually do need emotions to arrive at a solid decision -- some in making value judgments at the point of decision, others during the analytical processes leading up to the decision. The key is to have a healthy level of emotion contributing to your rational process.

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#222
post #219
post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>China has strict gun control. What happens when people go crazy in China? Mass killing via tractor (17 dead, 20 injured). [2] Crazy people intent on mass murder find ways to kill people. And how many more could that guy have killed with a gun? In any field of endeavour people are more effective when using better tools, and a gun is a tool designed and optimized for killing. Just because we can't make killing impossi…

Gun is also a tool designed and optimized for self-defense. You may be willing to accept being defenseless in order to reduce risk of very rare events but not everybody wants that. I, for one, would prefer to accept this microscopic risk and be able to defend myself if more frequent situation - such as home invasion, encounter with a violent criminal intent on harming me, etc. - arises.

  > Gun is also a tool designed and optimized for
  > self-defense.
So, how many shot back at the attacker in that movie theater?

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#223
post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gun is also a tool designed and optimized for self-defense. You may be willing to accept being defenseless in order to reduce risk of very rare events but not everybody wants that. I, for one, would prefer to accept this microscopic risk and be able to defend myself if more frequent situation - such as home invasion, encounter with a violent criminal intent on harming me, etc. - arises.

> Gun is also a tool designed and optimized for > self-defense. So, how many shot back at the attacker in that movie theater?

None, because movie theaters are gun-free zones, so, naturally, the only person that had the gun was the criminal attacker. See also: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4465 Now compare to this case: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sKQl-Qp5W0&feature=youtu... where somebody on the scene did have a gun.

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#224

"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.

As someone who is suffering from depression and tried therapy, I think this is too vast a topic to sum it up in one poignant description like that and there are definitely different "complicated minds" and each one of them can experience it differently. So, it is as valid a description as any other because it can have just as many different root causes. The same is true for the "complicated" part - ultimately, both are rather superficial summaries probably for the sake of brevity, so while not appreciative of the actual issues, both do fit in the article since the intentions weren't to really analyze anyone's state of mind.

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#225

"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…

I am very interested in this and you seem to know more about Freudian therapy and behavior therapy - the usual counter argument from the Freudian side is that behavior therapy might help but ultimately the underlying issues can/will re-surface and manifest themselves in new, different issues. So typically they are calling it very superficial, just scratching the surface whereas Freudian therapy usually takes much, much, MUCH longer and in the end you might be wondering who you really are and how many. What is your take on this?

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#226

"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…

Wake me up when "the majority view of modern psychology" provides a refutation of Szasz.

Szasz is a psychiatrist, not a psychologist and if I understand it correctly, he said that a "mental illness" is not a real disease because it is not physical - he did not say these "problems" do not exist.

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#227
post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wake me up when "the majority view of modern psychology" provides a refutation of Szasz.

Szasz is a psychiatrist, not a psychologist and if I understand it correctly, he said that a "mental illness" is not a real disease because it is not physical - he did not say these "problems" do not exist.

You missed the point. Szasz explained why these modern "treatments" and ways of looking at and dealing with people, which the OP talked about, are bad. Until Szasz's explanation is both understood and refuted -- instead of neither -- then it's both stupid and harmful to just go on talking about these things like they are OK and endorsing them because they are popular.

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess the thing is that gasoline has many non-killing uses, whereas guns don't. I live in a country where access to guns is much more tightly controlled than in the US, and I'm glad of it. Sure, under some circumstances a can of gasoline can be more lethal than a gun, but the prospect someone chasing me down the street at 3AM with a can of gasoline doesn't scare me nearly as much as someone chasing me with a gun. T…

It would only be a straw man if arson weren't a good way to kill a lot of people at once. Events have proven otherwise. This particular assclown had the smarts to do a lot more damage than he did. If he couldn't have put his hands on firearms, who's to say what he might have done instead? Turn himself in peacefully? I'm guessing not. He might have gone full Aum Shinrikyo on the theater full of people.

Under a certain set of circumstances almost anything is capable of killing a lot of people (ice build-up on some piece of hydraulic equipment, corrosion, a screw-driver, some inconclusive scientific data). However for killing in a broad number of scenarios the thing that is going to be most effective is a device that is designed for killing.

If, as you claim gasoline is, in general, more lethal than guns (and thus in need of regulation) why don't we start issuing police and soldiers with cans of gasoline?

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#229
post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>China has strict gun control. What happens when people go crazy in China? Mass killing via tractor (17 dead, 20 injured). [2] Crazy people intent on mass murder find ways to kill people. And how many more could that guy have killed with a gun? In any field of endeavour people are more effective when using better tools, and a gun is a tool designed and optimized for killing. Just because we can't make killing impossi…

Who knows? Maybe there were a few people he'd really like to kill that he couldn't kill with his tractor but could have killed with a gun, and killing them would have appeased his insanity (briefly, at least) so that there would have been fewer people dead. Maybe if tractors were banned he would have built a fertilizer bomb and killed hundreds. We can't know, and setting policy based on speculation is pointless.

Disingenous. We can't possibly be certain of the impact of any particular policy change, but that doesn't mean we should never change policy; we have to use our best judgement based on the available evidence.

Guns are weapons (duh) and killing is their raison d'etre; if they weren't more effective at killing than the alternatives, there would be no reason to ever produce them.

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a rhetorical question. I don't see that there is anything which makes gun ownership important, I don't see that it protects against anything significant, and I don't see it as being better than not having that right. It's kind of hard to support a negative claim like that. It would be nice if you could kick in a bit of your side instead of just complaining about how I say things. And no, "it's in the Constitutio…

You're the one who is making the case that the second amendment is distinct from the others. Give him something to respond to.

I'm not sure what else I can give. The second amendment doesn't work against government abuses of power, nor does it provide for anything that humans need to live a fulfilling life. That's about it. What else are you looking for?
Post reply on HN