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

Thinking the unthinkable

anarchistsoccermom.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 462 posts

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#31

Post by javajosh »

joonix wrote: post #23
brianchu wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think there is anything wrong with the idea that one day people will try to optimize their genes, even if it's only self-selecting. Yet: 1) Hereditary factors can only explain a small part of the picture. Eliminating hereditary factors that predispose people to developing mental illnesses would only eliminate a fraction of the problem. Environmental factors play a huge role. 2) The point at which what you des…

But the CT shooter was never in trouble with the law and wasn't known to have any violent tendencies. And most people are not like the OP blogger: they aren't going to turn in their child to the authorities. A schizophrenic may not ever have violent tendencies. Then, one day a voice tells them to kill everyone. Meanwhile, someone without a mental illness has a moment of rage and threatens to kill a guy at a bar. Do w…

>What were the environmental factors behind Lanza and Holmes (Aurora)? Both came from upper-middle class backgrounds. Both grew up in idyllic environments with "normal" parents with careers and health insurance.

This is, of course, the crux of the matter. Clearly there is something in America's environment that makes us far more prone to this sort of thing than other places, with or without gun control. Identifying what that is will be critical to preventing this from happening again. Gun control can reduce the body count, but even a body count of one (suicide) is not acceptable. The silver lining to this is that these events raise a dramatic warning to us that there is something deeply, seriously wrong with our culture.

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#32

Post by enoch_r »

joonix wrote: post #12
forrestthewoods wrote: post #7

Post like this terrify me. What if there isn't anything that can be done? It seems like there are some people that are just born broken or at some point they break. Men who experience schizophrenia it often stars in their late teens or early 20s, and late 20s/early 30s for women [1]. I had a friend in high school who was completely normal in every way. During his first year in college he literally just went crazy. It…

This may be politically incorrect to say right now, but I think the genes associated with mental illnesses that have a tendency to lead to violence will be phased out by a future generation sometime within this century and the next. We'll soon enough try gun control. That won't stop mass killings. Then we'll try increased mental healthcare access. That won't do much because we'll struggle with the Constitutionality o…

I think this relies on an overestimation of the planning and foresight that goes into most pregnancies. About half of US pregnancies are unplanned, and it certainly seems like there are large segments of the population for whom even relatively short-term risks, like the propensity of the father to cheat--or never be involved at all--are basically ignored when choosing a mate.

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#33

Post by javajosh »

xyzzy123 wrote: post #10
javajosh wrote: post #5

Does anyone know a) how often this sort of pattern presented itself historically, and b) what people did back in the good old days? For example, what would a small rural town have done to support someone like Michael? Would they have treated him somehow? Would they have assumed he was possessed by a demon and tried an exorcism? Or would they have found a way to get rid of him in a hunting accident, and had a dirty li…

I hope that clockwork-orange style behavior modification or remote "kill switches" in people are never socially acceptable answers to this problem :(

That seems like the most humane way to go. I don't see anyone else in this thread doing anything more than throwing their hands up in the air saying that it's a problem too difficult to solve, including you. So, rather than poo-poo my ideas, how about offering up your own?

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#34

Post by [deleted] »

mpweiher wrote: post #17
antidoh wrote: post #11

Outlaw guns, knives and rocks, and wink them out of existence, and these people are still there. Treat them, and some of them will come back. Outlawing guns doesn't solve this problem. But outlawing guns is the kind of "solution" we like, because a) there's a clear, specific action to argue over, and b) we can focus on it long enough to get the law through and then fool ourselves into thinking we've done something.

Regulating guns ("outlawing" is a straw man) ameliorates the problem of how much damage a mentally disturbed person can do. A knife in the same situation is much less dangerous, as evidenced by the incident in China at the same time where people were hurt, but none so far killed. Degrees matter.

[deleted]

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#35

Post by doctorpangloss »

Children are a severe puzzle. What can we tell mothers like this?

Is there a long-term self-care situation for a child that misbehaves, even if his IQ is "130"? Do we tell her to modify her expectations—that no test can change his disabilities?

Or do we embrace the neurotypical? At low expense the taxpayer can pay people to study kids like these and build an environment where their "high IQ" can thrive.

We are weird with children in this country. Our constitution does not establish any interest, state or federal, in them. We have gun rights and not children's livelihood rights. We abrogate responsibility of the hard question—treat like disabled or treat like special genius—to fallible and powerless parents.

The discussion is not, What do we do with moms or guns? It's what do we do with children.

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#36

Post by JohnLatter »

potatolicious wrote: post #28
LatterJohn wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone from her sons perspective. Unfortunately, she doesn't deal with her son the way he needs to be dealt with. Stick him in-front a computer, surround him with electronics(DO NOT TAKE THEM AWAY, USE THEM AS THERAPY) and feed him. Nothing else... This is how your autist/aspy child becomes a brilliant geek. If you even attempt to program them in the NORMAL way, they will do nothing but, reject, and yes, call you…

> "Maybe, he'll be the next Steve or Bill. Perhaps, he'll be the next Gary Mckinnon." Or maybe something will trigger him at age 20 and he makes good on his threats. > "This mom seems to be (insanely)attempting to program a NOT-Normal-Child into a Normal-Child." Because the "not normal" side of the child is violent, cunningly manipulative, and possibly homicidal. There is a line at which we draw acceptable behavior -…

"When a child has demonstrable, repeated, unpredictable..."

If its repeatable, its definitely predictable now.

Thank you for the person who posted this method(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pivotal_response_therapy), it was unknown to me before, but it seems to be what could be attempted in a majority of these situations.

As far as anyone becoming more isolated...Why does a person have to be social in the first place, isolation is sometimes exactly what is needed even, wanted. In the mindset of certain autist/apsy, Tradition(s), family-concepts-dynamics, even self-preservation are completely worthless ideological fantasies.

The violent behavior is purely reactive, and just an escalation of the manipulation technique that he is employing. He's SO SMART his brain is brute-forcing social methods of manipulation in order to obtain/achieve a goal/objective. If he is rejected one way, he will just attempt another method to get what he wants, and so on. Violence is usually the last resort of the reactions unless, he knows it will usually work the first attempt.

Its intelligence that is both the savior & the enemy here.

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#37

Post by javajosh »

mpweiher wrote: post #17
antidoh wrote: post #11

Outlaw guns, knives and rocks, and wink them out of existence, and these people are still there. Treat them, and some of them will come back. Outlawing guns doesn't solve this problem. But outlawing guns is the kind of "solution" we like, because a) there's a clear, specific action to argue over, and b) we can focus on it long enough to get the law through and then fool ourselves into thinking we've done something.

Regulating guns ("outlawing" is a straw man) ameliorates the problem of how much damage a mentally disturbed person can do. A knife in the same situation is much less dangerous, as evidenced by the incident in China at the same time where people were hurt, but none so far killed. Degrees matter.

Everyone reaches for answers at a time like this, and a sad majority reach for thoughtless answers like gun control, that ironically embody the very stupidity and carelessness that contributes to this violence. It's such a smug, pat answer that relegates responsibility to some higher authority. It's the same sentiment that makes people feel isolated, alone, unheard, helpless, and eventually, desperate. "Just shut up, get a job, go to church, watch football and pay your mortgage. And if that existence doesn't make you happy, then there's something wrong with you." If you hear this often enough, and if you don't manage to connect with others who are equally appalled by it, then you WILL go mad.

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#39

Post by pjscott »

javajosh wrote: post #31
joonix wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the CT shooter was never in trouble with the law and wasn't known to have any violent tendencies. And most people are not like the OP blogger: they aren't going to turn in their child to the authorities. A schizophrenic may not ever have violent tendencies. Then, one day a voice tells them to kill everyone. Meanwhile, someone without a mental illness has a moment of rage and threatens to kill a guy at a bar. Do w…

>What were the environmental factors behind Lanza and Holmes (Aurora)? Both came from upper-middle class backgrounds. Both grew up in idyllic environments with "normal" parents with careers and health insurance. This is, of course, the crux of the matter. Clearly there is something in America's environment that makes us far more prone to this sort of thing than other places, with or without gun control. Identifying w…

Do we actually have statistics showing America to be worse about this than other places? It sounds like the kind of thing that people just assume after hearing about a sensational, attention-grabbing tragedy.

Remember when there were huge epidemics of suicide and Satanic ritual abuse in the 80s? Or rather, people said there were. In reality, suicide rates remained mostly flat, even declining slightly overall, and the evil Satanic cults were a myth. So, be careful about postulating something deeply wrong with our culture, when there may well be another explanation.

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#40

Post by pm90 »

javajosh wrote: post #31
joonix wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the CT shooter was never in trouble with the law and wasn't known to have any violent tendencies. And most people are not like the OP blogger: they aren't going to turn in their child to the authorities. A schizophrenic may not ever have violent tendencies. Then, one day a voice tells them to kill everyone. Meanwhile, someone without a mental illness has a moment of rage and threatens to kill a guy at a bar. Do w…

>What were the environmental factors behind Lanza and Holmes (Aurora)? Both came from upper-middle class backgrounds. Both grew up in idyllic environments with "normal" parents with careers and health insurance. This is, of course, the crux of the matter. Clearly there is something in America's environment that makes us far more prone to this sort of thing than other places, with or without gun control. Identifying w…

Have you considered that this might be a purely statistical phenomena? What I mean is, isn't it possible that such things occur in the US only because there are so many people in the US, and once the population gets large enough, the number of outliers get large enough, in absolute terms, to become noticeable? It's often forgotten that US has the 3rd largest population, after China and India (although admittedly far behind either one)
Post reply on HN