"Crazy" vs character flaws

[H2O Man]

I’d like to take a minute to discuss an issue that I think is important. It has to do with some of the responses I’ve read on threads here, regarding the gunman in Binghamton and other similar incidents. There is a tendency for many to people to use descriptions such as "mentally ill," "crazy," or "nuts" to describe the murderer. Clearly, the type of person who shoots and kills a group of people has issues, but it seems a disservice to those suffering from mental illnesses to "explain" his behavior in that context.

From years of experience in working at a mental health clinic with two populations – those with serious and persistent mental illnesses, and those referred for services due to convictions on criminal offenses – I can say that mentally ill people are far, far more likely to be the victim of violence, than the perpetrator. More, I know that when there are cases of violence that are sensationalized in the news media, complete with the descriptions of "crazy," it is painful for many decent people, who’s only "crime" is that they suffer from a mental illness.

A chronic mental illness makes day-to-day life challenging enough for a person. To label the members of this group as unpredictably violent and dangerous adds to the stigma that makes their life even more difficult.

There are, of course, some mentally ill people who are violent. Paranoid schizophrenia is the illness most closely related to violent behavior. Yet this disease represents a small minority of those suffering from mental illness.

Another factor that can come into play with violence is substance abuse. The drug alcohol, for example, has a close association with violence. And while many people view addiction as a disease, the truth is that alcohol use is involved in many cases of violence, including among people who may not be addicted to it. Alcohol abuse can precipitate violence as readily in people without mental illness, as those with an illness.

In working on forensic cases, it was not uncommon to have people facing legal consequences for any number of reasons try to avoid responsibility for their behavior by claiming mental illness. This is, in part, because the media creates the "crazy" stereotypes, and many laymen believe that insanity defenses are common court tactics. It is also due to the tendency for many criminals to try to get away with their activities.

How can we understand such behavior? Is it a simple case of genetics? There have been people who argue that human beings are, by nature, violent. This position holds that people are, by way of instinct, prone to violence. But a closer look shows that instinct’s connection to violence is limited to the "fight or flight" behaviors associated with defensive violence. And human history indicates while there are episodes of violence associated with all cultural phases, that modern society has significantly higher rates of extreme violence than, say, hunting and gathering societies.

Does that mean that violence is environmental? If a society such as the USA has far more gun-related homicides than a country such as Sweden, does that mean that guns make us more violent, or that the ability of violent people to access guns increases the rate of violence? A number of incidents of family homicide/suicide are happening at a time when people are losing their jobs. Is it as simple as making sure people have jobs? Or are these families that already deal with stress in violent manners, and simply take a final step?

Certainly, environmental factors have a very real connection to violence. It creates more of a problem for society, than the genetic factors that influence mental illness. A combination of factors, including access to weapons (and not just guns), the stresses associated with economics, substance abuse and addiction, and the lack of the skills needed to deal with problems are all related to our high level of violence.

Is violence a result of the smallest unit of our society, the nuclear family? What role does gender play? Certainly, male violence against women is a serious issue. And it is far too common. But gender alone is not the defining factor. In dealing with domestic violence, the groups I co-facilitated began to have a number of women referred by the courts. Some engaged in violence against men. Others were in violent relationships with other women.

Statistics show that the majority of child abuse is committed by women, 58% to 42%. (S. Levine, 2001; USDHHS, 2008; J. Macionis, 2009) Family violence often creates a vicious cycle: almost without exception, those adults who abuse children, were abused as children. But, equally important, not all abused children grow up to be abusive adults. And that may be one of the single most important factors that we can consider, when trying to answer why our society is as violent as it is.

Just as every child that is raised in a violent home is not going to become a violent adult, there is another factor – closely related – to consider. There are some children who are raised in good homes that grow up to be terrible adults. In our society, there is a tendency for many people to think that terrible adults probably are that way, because of the way they were raised. Of course, many are. But there are also many, many good parents, who did the best they could, and who feel guilty, questioning themselves if they are responsible for their children’s behaviors?

Perhaps we overlook another factor. What is it that makes an abused child grow up to be a gentle adult? And what is lacking in a child raised in a decent home, who becomes a rotten adult? Isn’t it a matter of what we call "character," an individual trait that is found in the context of the genetic-environmental debate, but which is also independent of these factors?

I have met many more people with good character who have mental illness, have been the victim of violence, and who are poor, than I have met – or even read about – rich politicians with good character. And I know who is more responsible for issues of violence, in terms of our country’s policies.

Finally, in regard to the tragic events in Binghamton, I believe it makes most sense to view it as a result of the gunman’s bad character than any other factor. I do not think he was "crazy." Rather, it was character flaws, found in an angry, hateful, vicious individual.

[Uncle Joe]

1. One of my best friends in the Marine Corps, was one of the nicest, coolest, mellowest people you

would even meet, he would help anyone in need and was an excellent trumpet player, every time I hear Chicago's music ie; "Beginnings" I think of him. He played that song incessantly while in the barracks it was either that or he was talking about possibly losing his girlfriend as he was stuck overseas. As a side note later on they would marry.

However if you ever went in to a bar or club with him and he started drinking, it was like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hide, it wasn't a question of whether a fight would break out, it was just a matter of when and how many other guys would be involved.

Thanks for the thread, H2O Man.

[H2O Man]

7. Thanks.

I've met people who were about the same as you describe your friend. Some wanted to get in physical fights when they drank, and others were just mean and insulting. I remember talking to one friend the day after he had been out of control, and him saying, "Ah, forget it. I already have." But you can't take some things back.

[hedgehog]

66. Some prople drink so they have an excuse to be violent - the

"it wasn't me, it was the booze" defense. It is often used to justify domestic violence.

[Democracyinkind]

57. Totally reminds me of what Cenk said a few days ago

...on TYT about Glenn Beck ... Pretty much the same thing, although I bet Glenn isn't that nice of a person even when he's not high.

I'm pondering on this question...especially since it seems that we are in for some rampant violence, and the amount of "barry seotero" posts on the www really make me expect far worse things to come.

Do we know if the Pittsburgh Killer was high, or anything? Do you guys think that these things happen to "latently disturbed" people and it just takes a combination of triggers to let them loose?
Or is this more like a "we didn't see that coming" thing?
I'm still undecided when it comes to identifying his freeper ideology as his main cause for killing 3 cops... By that logic I would expect an anarchist or something to commit a massacre once in a while - which really doesn't happen all that much.

Somehow they all kill to "preserve america", and the people who have a vested interest in "bringing america down" don't really seem to be that violent...
Or can anyone think about someone who massacred people because his liberal mindset told him to do so?

[Me.]

2. Toxic Rage?

Not having the skills to resolve their issues peacefully? I read regarding the PIttsburgh case, that the guy was afraid Obama was going to take his guns away. Frankly, despite all the hate talk by rw radio and the stupidity of a Bachmann who says she wants citizens armed and dangerous, I think it was just an excuse. He was murderously mad about something and took it out on fellow citizens. Yes, or no?

[H2O Man]

4. Right.

He was frustrated, because he believed he should be recognized by others as having the very qualities that he knew he lacked. He attempted what is known as "suicide by cop," and hoped to be a legendary figure among the right-wing, neo-nazites. It seems evident that he had played this over in his mind and had prepared to play the role in real life. Instead, he exposed himself as a violent thug and a coward. A total lack of character. It's a shame that some decent people lost their lives, and many others had their lives damaged by him.

[roughsatori]

3. Excellent post. I highly recommend your refreshingly thoughtful OP.

I have taught classes & facilitated workshops on effective methods for working with people who are chronically-mentally-ill substance-abusers. The attendees were psychologists, Mds, nurses, and counselors who would receive CEU and CAC credits.

When I consulted for max & mod care facilities there tended to be a similar issue to a point you make. If the clients were caught shop-lifting (or exposing themselves etc.), the staff would enable the negative behaviors by running interference and meeting with the victims to talk them out of calling the police and pressing charges. The staff would cajole with guilt & credentials. I had to meet with local business owners and instruct them that they were to phone the police when a person known to be from our facility committed a crime. Then I would teach the staff how to assist a client in navigating the legal system and, more importantly, other tools for getting ones needs met. Some staff were fired as they refused to help the clients in this manner. Within 2 years, 1 of my programs was selected as a model for use country-wide. There was a lot of group and individual support given to the staff and clients. Group methods, level-system, parrelle process, structure, and clear consequences were the meat of the model.

You are absolutely correct that there are people diagnosed with major mental illness who never commit a crime and are guided by a healthy morality - and there are people who are mentally healthy who have major characterological/morality issues. They are not "sick" people they are just "bad" people.

My experience has taught me that "The only difference between the staff and clients is that the clients might get better."

I hope I am making sense. I have drunk a staggering amount of coffee today.

Thanks again for such a clear, well thought out post.

[annabanana]

8. - an excellent example of the need & value of "community". .

Our lives are far too fractionalized.

[H2O Man]

14. Thanks.

The MICA population presents challenges in a group setting. Mixing in someone with an ASPD makes it a whole different set of challenges.

[Juche]

5. It is a negative stereotype

As someone who has had and recovered from a serious mental illness, yeah it stings when people make these assumptions that violent=crazy. Not only that, but because people assume mentally ill people are violent, they can be more aggressive against you than they would be with a non mentally ill person. I know for a fact that the mentally ill are far more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators, and I think the unspoken assupmtion that you are violent and dangerous (and the assumption that you are weak minded, or not important to society) make them/us easier targets. When people assume you are the violent one (and get far more defensive and aggressive because of it), and when they assume you don't deserve to have your feelings or boundaries respected anyway you are more likely to be the victim of violence than anything else.

The guy had some serious personality issues, but he wasn't mentally ill from what I could see. The mentally ill are no more violent than anyone else and as you said more likely to be victims and not perpetrators.

[H2O Man]

16. The guy put

a fair amount of planning into this, before he went through with it. He sounds like a predator. The public would be much better off if people were able to identify predators, rather than the mentally ill, who are far more likely to be preyed upon.

[Juche]

21. Agreed

Sociopaths make up about 2-3% of the public, roughly the same as people with bipolar and schizophrenia. However because sociopaths know how to have superficial social skills (unlike the seriously mentally ill) they tend to have an easier time getting through life w/o arousing suspicion.

[Blue_Roses]

61. Oh, wow..

that's so true: "The public would be much better off if people were able to identify predators, rather than the mentally ill, who are far more likely to be preyed upon."

I think there's such a fine line sometimes and often those who "snap" aren't mentally ill, but unable to cope with the strife that they feel. Some commit suicide and some commit homicide. Times have been rough lately and I sometimes get tired and want to give up, but thoughts of random homicide never cross my mind.

I had a Sociology teacher tell us once that we are all capable of murder, we just don't know what that "breaking point" will be. That's not to say that just because we reach a breaking point we will commit murder, but I understand where she was coming from.

[hedgehog]

67. Unable to cope, or unwilling to cope? I've often heard the phrase

"I just snapped" offered as an excuse, as if the responsibility for the outcome belongs with the person(s) who provoked the violence. Of course, to an outsider, many times there was no provocation!

[LooseWilly]

84. I think "snapping" is an example of unable to cope.

It's a matter of the individual's coping skills... and how much that individual is forced to try to cope with. Given some time to relax, perhaps the "snapper" wouldn't've snapped in a given instance. I think it's a cumulative stress issue... and the final "snapping" point might be something that even the one who "snaps" might not've noticed had he/she not been so stressed at that particular time.

When I think of "I just snapped" I think of the movie Taxi Driver. Bickle... "just snapped". (Probably because I drove a taxi for years... and I got pretty close to that threshold myself a couple of times, but taking a few days off always released some of the pent up violent urges.)

[GreenPartyVoter]

76. I've been 'violent'. Thrown things, hit at people. I knew deep in the back of my mind

that it wasn't right, but I also had trouble controlling the impulse to lash out when I lost patience/became frustrated. It was like Dr. Jeckyll was aware of Mr. Hyde's actions, but had no power to do anything about them.

It's always amazing to me that I can be in a similar situation dozens of times over and have just as many different emotional reactions to it depending upon where my brain chemistry is at at the time of the experience. It tells me that personality sure has a lot to do with chemical make-up.

That said, I am not trying to paint all mentally ill people as being violent. I just wanted to relate my own experience as one single person who happens to have a mental illness.

[canetoad]

6. I think 'crazy'

is too often confused with angry or selfish.

[H2O Man]

17. Right.

And with rage and hatred,

[malaise]

9. Another very thoughtful post

K&R

[H2O Man]

18. Thanks.

Heck of a weekend.

[Ocracoker16]

10. Thanks for explaining the distinction

I hope others will read your post and come to understand that automatically calling peoople who go on shooting rampages "crazy" really does increase the stigma felt by those living with mental illness. As you have pointed out, some of these individuals have character deficits or are acting under the influence of alcohol and drugs. This is not to say that mental illness is never involved in these kind of cases. It is important to remember how many environmental factors can push one over the edge. There are many people that suffer from mental illnesses, but only a minority of the population engage in criminal activity. As already pointed out, there are many more mentally ill victims of violence than there are violent mentally ill. Mental illness makes people much more vulnerable.

I hope that DU'ers avoid using the "crazy" label to describe every criminal that we hear about. It is true that it is just a word, but I believe it to be a word that if used too casually it can cause law abiding individuals with mental illness to feel worse.

[H2O Man]

19. Thank you.

I think that most DUers are of the character that would not purposely insult a group of decent people, if they were aware of how certain words hurt.

[kristopher]

11. In common vernacular "crazy" refers to someone whose actions ...

...are so far out of the norm that they are incomprehensible to the vast majority of the people. When someone perpetrates acts of extreme violence without there being a recognizable "reason" the result is to label them "crazy".

All of the stats and all of the psychobabble in the world isn't going to make the actions of someone that kills (ie their 5 kids, or 3 police, or 4 police, or 13 immigrants studying to become citizens) without provocation comprehensible to most people. The minds that snap and the minds that don't snap are different in a fundamental way that we don't really understand. Until we DO understand, I'm afraid people with mental illnesses are going to get stigmatized because we, as individuals, simply don't have the time to gain a requisite expertise to distinguish the dangerous from the benign (something that even professionals have difficulty with to a degree). I would liken it to snakes. Most are not only harmless to humans, but actually beneficial. Unfortunately most people can't tell the difference and tend to react in a precautionary manner. I don't think that is wrong so much as it is a simple fact of the price of knowledge; everyone simply can't know everything about every threat faced.

I'd also reject your suggestion that 'character' is the issue. To me, that sounds like a personal bias on your part. I've met a number of powerful people, and I don't think they generally lack in the area of character, just as I don't think poor people have some kind of monopoly on integrity; at both ends of the class spectrum I've met some great people and some people that make my skin crawl.

I think you are lot closer to the mark with your remarks on childhood. Whatever the "it" is that makes people snap, I think it has to do with bad wiring that started either genetically or in childhood.

[Hannah Bell]

28. I might agree, except: we don't label, i.e., Mafia hitmen or muggers "crazy," though their

behavior is extreme. We don't label people who kill their cheating spouses, or political terrorists, or people like Bush who send young people to kill other people over lies as crazy - though to me, Bush's action is about as "extreme" as it gets in the cold-bloodedness, duplicitousness & number of dead.

[kristopher]

30. You've overlooked a significant point in my post

"When someone perpetrates acts of extreme violence without there being a recognizable "reason" the result is to label them "crazy".

And even in the case of the examples you've enumerated I suspect that if you talk with someone who has been directly impacted by that type of cold blooded personality, they will offer up the word "crazy" if pushed to explain how someone could do that to another human.

BTW, saw your remark about Japan, and I agree. Although I have seen a couple of mean Japanese drunks, it is a condition that is easy to diffuse if someone tries. In fact, the differences in the way Japanese rear their children are what make me think that our violence problems are rooted in too early an imposition of "discipline". Have you ever gone to a K-3 class and seen the way children are allowed to freely act? I was amazed at how different it was from the rigidity of the US classrooms I've seen. The same attitude towards the young exists everywhere there and it is something we sorely need to learn and internalize. "Spare the rod and spoil the child" is the mantra of waaaaay too many people here.

When were you there and where were you?

[Hannah Bell]

31. you're right, i overlooked the "reason" sentence; i'd agree, except that

a lot of the time there is are reasons given (e.g. bullying, got fired, etc.) but they're not deemed enough to justify murder, thus the person must be crazy.

Though, you know, most people wouldn't rob & murder, become a hitman, terrorist, etc. either. Yet those motives are deemed rational.

It doesn't quite seem logical to me - especially the vitriol heaped on murderers who are also supposedly "crazy" & so supposedly also not responsible for their actions. I think it's more just kneejerk categorization informed by the culture, & the revulsion for violence hitting close to home.


I tend to agree that early childhood is less "disciplined" in Japan than the US - but I late childhood/teens more disciplined. I'm not sure that completely accounts for the "mean drunk/nice drunk" phenomenon though...

I lived there 81-85 & was married to a Japanese spouse 10 years. You?

[kristopher]

33. I don't know that we think they are rational

So much as the motives are mundane enough to be understandable. We can appreciate the desire for money even if we can't understand going that far to get it; but where do we find common ground with someone who walks into a school and shoots 32 students? I just don't see the label as being pejorative so much as it is a flailing about in a sea of uncertainty.

It looks like I have you bracketed. I was there from 77-80, then again from 86-95. I graduated from Jochi, lost a wife（日本人）of nine years to cancer in '88 and married my 先輩 a couple of years later. I miss the place quite a bit but we just had to get away from the earthquakes after Kobe.

[Hannah Bell]

36. How'd you wind up going to Japanese university in the 70s?

Not so common then.

[kristopher]

37. That wasn't sequenced properly.

I returned in 86 to attend school. It wasn't common then either. I don't have real data, but from my personal sampling I'd put the number of Americans in the postwar era that have gone through a 4 year program there at less than 500, probably considerably less.

[Hannah Bell]

49. so what were you doing in the 70s?

[Caliman73]

12. Agreed

There are many factors both genetic and environmental that create the "perfect storm" of violence that we see. I believe you are right on the money though with regards to the use of "mental illness", "crazy" or other descriptors. We usually use those words to separate the perpetrators of such violence from ourselves. Having also worked many years with chronically mentally ill adults, I know that the idea that they are more violent than the general population is patently false.

We definitely need to look at ourselves and our environment (communities, families, etc...) and realize that we spawn the people who are capable of these violent crimes. We need to increase funding for mental health services, slow down our pace of life, and learn to deal with the stressors in our society in healthy ways. People need to be more honest about what is going on in their lives.

[H2O Man]

22. Right.

There is a related need for people who have hostile, manipulative people in their home (or work place) to be educated so that they can recognize warning signs. And it's not just "warning signs" that a person is going to go on a shooting spree. But warning signs that people are being taken in by the gravitational pull of a sociopath, where things become so twisted that family members, friends, and co-workers get sucked in to believing lies.

[Mopar151]

53. The workplace thing is huge.

Because it gives the Sociopaths so much opprutunity to F up other people's lives. I've had one of these snakes screw up a very good job for me, and I'm still dealing with issues from him.
When you look at most big workplace disasters - enviromental, injury, or financial - you'll find one or more of these sleazeballs around somewhere.

[TheDebbieDee]

13. My mother was diagnosed as schizophrenic. I don't know

what type of schizophrenia she had but her episodes/seizures seemed to be triggered by her involvement with religion and Bible prophecies.

I am absolutely sure that no matter what religion she subscribed to, she would have had the same issues.

I believe that for some people, religion is an addiction, just like drugs, drinking, gambling, bad relationships, etc.

[H2O Man]

23. Right.

Religiosity is frequently among the symptoms that people with psychotic disorders experience.

Growing up with a parent having a serious illness, physical or mental, can provide difficulties for kids. I think it is often more so for kids with a mentally ill parent, because of the stigma that our society places on it. I appreciate you talking about it here.

[Forkboy]

15. If one more person says there's no difference between DU and FR....

...I'm pointing them to this thread. If this doesn't illustrate the difference between the two I don't know what will.

Fantastic post. Thank you.

[H2O Man]

24. Wel, thank you.

I really appreciate that. It means a lot to me.

[BlooInBloo]

20. Yup. The typical day-to-day use of "crazy" is to insulate people from being blamed for whatever.

[hedgehog]

68. It also insulates"normal" people from facing the fact that we all

carry the potential for violence. AS long as the perpetrator is

crazy

A Nazi

A Communist

A jihadist

A foreigner

etc, then I don't have to face the fact that in other circumstances, I might do the same thing. It also makes capital punishment easier and explains why small time thieves go to the pen and big time white collar thieves go to minimum security.

[bleever]

25. Thoughtful, informed, and informative.

This is another of those posts that really elevate DU. I really appreciate you articulating these points.

[undergroundpanther]

26. Sociopaths are not mentally ill.

They know what they do is bad,but they do it anyway and don't care.

A sociopath does not improve through medicine or any other therapy.
They stay that way.They feel they are perfect already.

Mental illness and psych injuries like PSTD does change with therapy and/or medications.
A mentally ill /psych injured person HAS a conscience.
They can care and can empathize, they can feel remorse..

A sociopath does not have a conscience. A sociopath knows exactly what he is doing is wrong, he wants what he wants and does and does not care who gets hurt,because it's all about making people jump for the sociopath..

And I too get weary of the 'crazy' stigmas.
Read about anti- stigma efforts in My state...
http://www.onourownmd.org/asp.html

[Quantess]

32. Exactly. Sociopaths will even try to destroy their own therapists, who are trying to help them,

I'll check out your link...

[Djinn]

35. actually not all mental illness

responds or changes with therapy and/or medication.

[kristopher]

38. You might want to look up "antisocial personality disorder"

It is considered a mental illness.

[GreenPartyVoter]

64. But I do wonder if sociopaths have bad wiring of their own? Do they

they have the capacity for empathy and choose to ignore it, or do that not even have the capacity due to faulty wiring? Always been very curious about that.


I do know with my bipolar my ability to feel empathy, or to even feel anything, waxes and wanes. One week I might feel nothing and another I might feel too much of everything.

[hedgehog]

69. Until we understand neurology better, we are going to have

problems separating illness from evil. Consider one woman who in the midst of her third episode of post-natal depression listens to the voices she alone hears and drowns her children to protect them from evil. She might even call the police to report her crime, but can anyone say she is responsible? Now, consider the man who stabs his pregnant wife then reports being mugged. We might call him crazy, but what we really mean is that he was both evil and foolish enough to think his crime would go unnoticed.

[GreenPartyVoter]

75. Very true. The mind and brain are very difficult to unlock, hence the

medicine-go-round most of us with mental illness have to hop on. It's just guess, guess, and guess again for treatment.

[Bette Noir]

81. Yes, the wiring is faulty.

No links, but I read a study, last year, I think, that showed a difference in the MRIs of people who lack compassion.

[Hannah Bell]

27. Something I noticed living in Japan - they were nicer drunks than Americans.

I never saw a mean drunk in Japan, even though they drink *a lot*, to the extent that one of the holidays, Cherry Blossom Festival, is basically about getting smashed while sitting under flowering cherries. They're sweet & goofy drunks, in my experience. Very different from my experience at home.


I definitely agree that "He was mentally ill" is a knee-jerk response to incidents like the recent ones.

[glowing]

29. How much of our violence issues stem from a society that lies to itself all the time?

We are taught "we're #1", we are taught historical inacuracies and lies, and we are fed a whole whopping line of bootstrap mantra--coupled closely with objects and money establishing one's worth. Along with that we have a M$M that is propaganda and we have these conspiracies because our govt. and everyone spends a lot of time lying to all of us. Throw in with it weapons and violence in video and hollywood that desensitizes our shock and romanticizes war and violence.. is it any wonder why people are going over the edge?

[wuvuj]

41. The gerbils are...

...running in their wheels at full speed...afraid of losing their jobs...while many jobs are still sent overseas....and productivity is expected to rise...in the middle of a recession going on depression...Limpballs et al stirring the pot...lost jobs...lost homes...lost savings...change happening that many don't understand and don't like because it isn't wingnut stupid so they can easily agree with it...people at the top have ranged from incompetent to criminal...jobs won't start to come back for several years...so get used to it?

The shit has hit the fan. Who would have expected it? :shrug: :sarcasm:

[Djinn]

34. thankyou

I'm so tired of feeling like a school marm when I'm all over the board asking people to stop describing anything they don't like/understand as "crazy"

[H2O Man]

42. I think that it

not only does a disservice to the mentally ill in general, but it presents a roadblock in keeping the entire public from understanding not only "what" actually happened, but "why." And the understanding of "what" and "why" are both necessary to decrease the risks of this happening over and over again.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[H2O Man]

40. Yes.

I am a madman.

Your problem, however, lies elsewhere. My OP did not "defend mass murderers." Quite the opposite. It places the responsibility squarely where it belongs. But you would need to read and understand what I wrote.

"You must believe me because madmen always tell the truth." -- Che Guevara, May 26, 1964.

[1]

43. ok. just discharge your weapon far from me and mine if you must...

kill who you must kill, h2o man...

just don't kill anyone of importance. or anyone i know.

i know that is selfish. but in this kind of situation, i will be selfish. and you will be too. so let's respect each other's selfishness.

ok?

[H2O Man]

44. I respect your right

to strongly disagree with things that you have neither read nor understood.

[1]

47. oh i think i absolutely understood what you posted tonight, buddy...

i only ask that you think about what you are about to do.

and don't do it. call some friends. some help. dude, some really fun people are here at 1-800-273-TALK. it like a dateline...

why involve others? what is the point? but if you must... keep it personal. quiet. small. better...

i like you bud. i like your posts. keep posting...

ok?

[pacalo]

78. Oh my. I do respect your composure & self-restraint.

And I thank you for writing an essay on this topic, because I've read many of the shoot-from-the-hip, dismissive comments you mentioned in regard to shooting incidents -- "he must be crazy" or "mentally ill".

People generally don't recognize or understand something unless they have dealt with it personally.

[Smith_3]

45. Learn to read. It helps.

Your post is helplessly off-topic. You are obviously clueless of what is even being discussed here.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Forkboy]

55. You haven't shown a single moment of adult behavior in this thread.

Everyone of your posts is an over top attack on anyone talking to you. When you act like an adult then you have the right to tell others to do the same. Telling people to shut the fuck up isn't adult action, it's the actions of a child, just like you're calling others. I hope you get shitcanned.

[Me.]

51. Get A Grip

or seek help

[Forkboy]

54. Try the decaf.

Sounds like you have some issues there yourself, Sport.

[Smith_3]

46. K&R

[rosesaylavee]

50. K & R

Another great essay that is right on. And a side note - you sure do bring them out of the dark corners don't you?

[H2O Man]

59. Like fly paper.

Not sure if that's a good thing or not. (grin)

Thanks.

[rosesaylavee]

71. My favorite reply of yours to date in a similar thread

happened earlier this year... It was simply "oh my". Classic.

[H2O Man]

72. A few

other ideas have come to mind. But it's often better to ignore certain people.

[grantcart]

90. I also loved that one

[Odin2005]

52. As someone who has mental health issues myself IMO many people like him clearly have mental issues.

Maybe it's just my naive faith in the natural goodness of humanity but I can't help but wonder if this gunman and people like him have some kind of personality disorder. Mix bad upbringing and, say, Schizotypal Personality Disorder and you'll get a conspiracy nut willing to kill people.

[AlinPA]

56. Thank you. After the shootings, often the first thing we hear is "mentally ill"-

In the Pittsburgh shooting we heard it again but that guy was acting out an agenda and he knew exactly what he was doing, down to putting on his bulletproof vest before he ambushed the police. That excuse of being mentally ill is not going work when that guy goes to trial here. He is an angry, hateful, vicious individual.

[nolabear]

58. Mental Health Professionals make a distinction

between kinds of diagnoses. The "official" diagnostic tool, the DSM IV, has Axis I diagnoses (which includes depression, bipolar disorders, schizophrenia, etc....the "mental illnesses" everyone is discussing) and Axis II, which includes Personality Disorders, here called character disorders. That includes Narcissistic P.D., Borderline P.D., and Antisocial P.D., among others.

Personality disorders have a range, as does everything, but at their extreme they are almost untreatable and are extremely hard to deal with, both in that afflicted one's personal realm ans as a therapist.

One theory, and one I give a lot of credence to, is that these are the result of the earliest shaping of the concept of what it means to be human, to feel a part of the human race at a most basic psychobiological level. We think in terms of attachment, which begins as parent-child bonds and goes on from there. Literal neuronal pathways develop that allow for being comforted and feeling empathy for another person. People who have serious disruptions in attachment never quite believe they are going to survive and that they are simply, securely a part of humanity, both in the personal and the general. That's why therapy is so poorly effective. For therapy to work, you have to be able to form a bond with the therapist.

This isn't to blame parents or anyone. Becoming a fully functioning, adult human being who can receive comfort from others and has that innate sense of being a part of something bigger than one's self...humanity at large...is a complex and delicate process. Most of us are lucky, and though we might have challenges, even mental illnesses, we can reach out to one another rather than to externalize our pain and lash out at whomever we believe is responsible.

[H2O Man]

65. I think there

is a certain range of thinking/behavior that is related to, but different from, personality disorders. And while I'm retired, and hence do not have the latest DSM at hand, I do have some of my (very) old notebooks, etc, which are accurate enough to use to quote J. Reid Meloy. He was/is the top student of Robert Hare.

The theories on psychopaths (or sociopaths, depending on which term a person prefers) started with H. Rosenfeld, were further developed by O. Kernberg, and were then taken further by Hare. Hence, we are familiar with the Hare check list.

Meloy, like Hare, believed that there was a psychobiological dimension to psychopathy, butthat "there are necessarily deficient and conflictual primary object experiences that determine its phenotypic expression." While today it is diagnosed as antisocial personality disorder, Meloy has noted that critera is "too descriptive, inclusive, criminally biased, and socioeconomically skewed to be of much clinical or research use."

While some will point out that Millon had noted the similarity of psychopathy and the DSM 3rd edition's description of symptom clusters for aspd in 1981, it is worth noting that Kruaepelin had earlier noted that while there is a psychogenetic base, that psychopathy involves a distinct degeneration in moral/ethical stature.

In laymen's terms, a basic thug will usually have what is known as the criminal code of conduct; though it is clearly distinct from that of the larger society, it is an identifiable sub-culture. A psychopath does not have any investment in following the criminal code of conduct, and considers it as a weakness that has no more to do with his meeting his needs than the legal code of the greater society.

Meloy considers psychopathy to be closer related to narcissistic personality disorder than antisocial, but focuses on the thinking that makes an "altered narcissistic personality disorder typical of the psychopathic personality."

[nolabear]

89. Yes, we're on the same page.

The "conflictual primary object experiences" you cite are what creates the problem. These days we think a great deal in terms of attachment disorders, "attachment" being a secure sense of closeness and security to the primary objects (i.e. parents or primary caregivers) and, by later association, the rest of the world. There is secure attachment, and then there are anxious, avoidant and ambivalent attachments to others. They play out at all kinds of extremes, one of which is sociopathy. Less extreme forms play out in such problems as conflict avoidance, inability to self-soothe, a penchant for feeling shame, fear of abandonment, and many others.

It's an interesting course of study.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

60. So Now It's Politically Incorrect To Call A Horrendous Murderer Crazy? Fuck That.

I'm so sick of all the PC garbage.

The binghamton murderer was a crazy fucker. End of story.

[Caliman73]

85. The problem with that ...

Is that the label is dismissive and serves only to separate ourselves from the actor and his actions. Saying "he's a crazy f*&K" is an emotional response. It has no value in actually determining what lead the person to commit the crimes. We all have emotional responses and are horrified when confronted with the human ability to cause such pain and suffering. We all tend to think that there was something "completely alien" in the person's make up. While it may be true statistically, because the vast majority of people in the world do not go on murderous rampages. It is still important to see which factors in this person's genetic, psychological, and social environment led to the crime so that we can address those things in the future.

Saying "he's a crazy f*&K" is akin to saying the Black people and Latinos don't graduate at the same rate as Whites because they are Black and Latino. It offers no way forward. It is understandable when we see horrendous acts of violence to assume that the person committing them "must be crazy" or "have something horribly wrong" with them. That is true. They often do. What the OP is saying is that labeling the actors in these viscous crimes "mentally ill", or "crazy" often tars other people with the same stroke because they actually have a diagnosed mental illness.

I understand from my current line of work and my former that perception can be everything when it comes to services. In California, funding for services for developmentally disabled people far exceeds funding for mental health services. The movement for access to quality services for developmentally disabled people was followed closely by the mental health movement and had the same champions in the legislature. Where the advocacy for mental health fell flat, was in how mentally ill people were perceived by the public. Now, there still is a great deal of stigma for people who are developmentally disabled but when we see the cute little baby with Down's syndrome, or the "mentally challenged" guy working at the grocery store, we feel good that there are services out there for them. When we see the homeless man talking to himself we get scared and just want him out of our neighborhood, despite the fact that this man has never caused anyone any harm. That is where calling someone a "crazy fuck" without ever putting more effort into understanding how he came to do such horrible things leads to further stigma, less compassion, and less services to deal with something that can quite possibly affect us, our children, or other loved ones.

Now I am not saying we should be all touchy feely on people who kill others. I am saying that we owe it to everyone to try refrain from pushing the acts away into a neat little compartment. If we ever hope to decrease these acts we need to face down why they occur.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

87. Again;

He was a crazy fuck. End of story.

[Djinn]

86. and you completely missed the point

as evidence by your use of the term crazy fucker, there is NO WAY anyone with a grasp of English could have read the entire OP and come to the conclusion you did.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

88. I Completely Got The Point.

Getting the point doesn't have to equate to agreeing with it. Too much shit we're supposed to be pc with already. I say fuck that to this one. Not a thing wrong with calling him a crazy fucker. He was a crazy fucker.

[Djinn]

93. no you think the point

is a PC one - it's patently not, you clearly and demonstrably did not just disagree with it you completely and utterly missed the point.

[H2O Man]

94. And provided a

wonderful example, as well, of why people shouldn't speak in the manner he does. Under normal circumstances, I don't bother to read anything that fellow writes, even in response to my OPs, because of the lack of insight that rules his thinking. However, in this instance, I'm delighted he stopped by to provide a hilarious example of not having a clue for us.

[Echo In Light]

62. Unfortunately Haters love to relegate any contrary view to their own as "crazy," "delusional"

This gained momentum within the social landscape via right-wing radio and cable "news" propaganda.

It works like this: if you disagree with the Hater's view, which is usually one that closely aligns itself with the aims/goals of the corporate/state nexus, that contrary view is automatically invalid/unprofessional or otherwise unseemly, and the one espousing it - or even questioning the subject at hand - is therefore "crazy."

What's really disturbing about this phenomenon is how rapidly this particular If You Disagree With Me You're CRAZY smear tactic took hold within the public mind.

[Echo In Light]

63. ...and should be added that when called on their hatefulness resort to the "objective" claim

They're just so super-duper smart that their position makes all others flawed {"ignorant," "crazy," etc} by default lol

[EFerrari]

70. Character flaws and mental illness aren't mutually exclusive categories, though.

One can be angry, hateful and vicious AND clinically paranoid or otherwise disordered.

I agree that it's important to be careful. Being sloppy doesn't advance either our understanding or our ability to manage what other people present to us in the world.

[H2O Man]

73. Oh, absolutely.

I agree. There are a large number of factors involved.

One of the things that has been theorized in the past was the relationship between stimulation -- something that the human brain requires -- and violence. There are at least two distinct types of stimulation, which include the most common type that most people think of when they hear/read the word "stimulation," which involves response; and a second type that creates. The second type is a characteristic of people's potential, and is found far less frequently in industrial and high-tech societies.

In modern society, the frustrated potential for creative stimulation can lead to "boredom," in a different sense than simply looking for something to do this afternoon. Of course, the more common type saturates our society; hence people numb themselves by watching "American Idle" and other foolishness. But it can also be associated with a form of thrill-seeking known as sadism. By no small coincidence, sadistic people often feel "bored." They are likely to use stimulants, although certainly most people who use stimulants to avoid feeling bored are not sadists. But there are lots of areas where there is overlap between the behaviors of common folk, and predators.

[EFerrari]

74. Yep. Sadists seem to feel most alive when they are inflicting pain.

Creativity involves destruction, too, but is very much "loaded" in the other direction.

The level of criminality in our culture should be no surprise to us when we realize how thoroughly most of us are discouraged from making anything but a paycheck. And similarly, it shouldn't surprise us that so many people use so many substances to manage the sterility of the lives they think they're supposed to find satisfying.

[geckosfeet]

77. Agreed to a point. That point is where we say that the gunmans behavior

the result of a "character flaw".

This I feel is a disservice to people with character flaws. Not trying to be flippant. This is simply not an accurate way to portray someone who walks into a building and shoots 13 people.

Without calling him crazy, I do think it within reason to call him deranged. He was clearly out of touch with reality and had little if any connection to his fellow humans. At a minimum, he seems to have been filled with fanatical, hysterical, blind hate and rage.

Granted, he may have had some character flaws that kept him from seeking help for his violent tendencies. But acting out in such a cataclysmic way indicates something far beyond a character flaw.

[Stinger2]

79. I would think twice before flipping someone off in traffic,

You have just seen the beginning of what is going to happen this summer, Millions out of work, babies crying, mothers calling dads worthless, Many people are on the edge, I would think twice before flipping someone off in traffic, it could become fatal.

[truthrocks]

83. I agree

Thanks for this reality check. Please see my post #82.:think:

[Bette Noir]

80. He was delusional, with a fixed, persistent, false idea

that the government was out to steal his guns. Without knowing him, it looks like he had atleast paranoid personality disorder, if not full-blown paranoid schizophrenia.

It's unfortunate that we don't have the vocabulary in the vernacular language to differentiate between people who are unhappy because of one mental disorder, and those who are dangerous because of another mental disorder.

[truthrocks]

82. H2O Man - some feedback on your words

I respect the thought and effort you have put into this informative and heartfelt commentary. While I agree with you that slang nomenclature, such as,"crazy" and "nuts" is thrown around all too casually in our culture, I reject the notion that the terms "having issues" or "character flaws" are appropriate or helpful ways to explain the behavior of someone who randomly shoots and kills their fellow human beings. First of all, it's simply not the truth. To pretend that it is, does a grave disservice to those who are actually burdened with an acute or chronic mental disorder. There is nothing wrong their "character," and their mental status is far more complex than "having issues."

As you well know, just as there are physical disorders with specific diagnostic criteria, there are also mental disorders that have specific diagnostic criteria. As imperfect as they are, these criteria are a necessary part of the path to our ultimate goal, which is to help us mortal humans heal our dis-ease, whatever it may be. The nature vs. nurture debate as causative factors will be debated into oblivion. What we DO know is that all disease is the result of a complex of constellation of genetics, environment and individual differences (including temperment). Specifically, with mental illness, biochemical, neurological and hormonal abnormalities must be included as well.

I suggest that if you really want to alleviate the stigmatization of mental illness, making up "labels" that sound nice is not going to do it. You have a wealth of information about this subject, garnered from your knowledge and experience. Somewhere between "crazy" and "character flaws" lies the reality of mental illness. The public needs to be educated. :)

[grantcart]

91. always worthwhile

I was rather stunned to see that a little more than half of child abuse is committed by women. I am assuming that this is strictly physical abuse and not just sexual abuse, which I assume is rather one sided.

Given that alot of women end up raising kids by themselves I guess it makes sense.

[Raineyb]

92. Interesting. The same could be said about the b chick

that she is an angry, hateful, vicious individual. But all we hear about her is how "mentally ill" she is. I suspect that the willingness to call an individual hateful or vicious correlates with how closely one identifies with said individual.

Regards