Read Elliot Rodger's elaborate attack plan

[pErvinalia]

The following is an interesting account of his 140 page "manifesto". I'm not going to read it (the manifesto), but if this person's analysis of it is right (and the historical account by the killer is right) then it would seem to me that he clearly had trouble functioning in society.

"My Twisted World" is an appalling document, because of the events that occasioned its publicity, but it is also a revealing one. It is the meticulous record of a man suffering a total collapse of mind, subjectivity and selfhood, from a very specific and pure form of narcissistic disordering. Various pundits have tried to attach more complex, and tendentious, diagnoses to Rodger's behaviour -- most of them relying on spurious neuro-psychiatry -- but what is plain, as a first-order description, is that Rodger was poisoned by dysfunctional narcissism. By "narcissism" we mean here a basic inability to get the relationship between self and world right. The correct idea of that is that we are limited selves in a world with other people, who have their own projects and motives. The narcissistic reversal is that the world is seen only and always as a function of the self, which is always morally blameless. We are all sufficiently narcissistic to function as subjects, organising the world around us. But we recognise our reality in it -- that we fall short in our actions, that we are limited in our powers, that reality is a resistant other that we negotiate.

Occasionally, our narcissism gets off the leash -- when we overestimate our worth, underplay our culpability in our failures, forget the otherness of others, and the legitimacy of their worlds. For some very small number of people, that narcissistic disordering becomes jammed on, totalising and completely consumes whatever real assessment of the world they can make. Such people are everywhere, everybody knows one -- those in the entertainment industry know many. They usually blaze bright young -- and, if they make a sufficient success of it, can accrue sufficient social power to make people put up with their shit. Those who don’t, when they fall, fall far, become malign. They’re the office sociopath, the paranoid in the MP’s waiting room, the adult child who blows up the family at Christmas, and on, and on. Rodger's record of his decline and fall is a portrait of someone at the very extreme of that disordering -- not simply because he ended it with mass murder, but because the record of his life is so relentlessly miserable and wounded.

Like many such afflicted people, Rodger's world-perception seemed to go wrong pretty early -- he records that from the age of eight, he was having great problems connecting with other children, attaching, being simply lost in activity. Whether that was actually the case when he was eight is less important than that he had come to believe it was. His record of his friendships from that age is coloured by this lack of attachment -- and then by the beginnings of narcissism, the overvaluation of self, to compensate for the perception of disdain. Rodger’s narrative is a meticulous record of the way in which such a narcissistic shell forms -- he becomes increasingly approving of his own appearance (he was blessed/cursed with being conventionally attractive), and then became by stages masculinist, racist and snobbish. What developed early, it seems, was a haughtiness -- a belief that people should come to him to be friends. When adolescence hit, that was extended to girls. By the time he had passed through five years of the scarifying US high schools system, he had lost all capacity to connect or to make a way in the world. By the time he was 18, these multiple failures had left him delusional about his own status. He was not recognised as great and a superior mate, so all women must be fools, animals, all men who were not Eurasian as he was were crude and ugly (he seemed to take a pride in the received notion that Eurasian men have "elegant" features), two roommates, geeky types assigned to him by his college, show him friendship, but are "obviously" too low class to connect with. And so on.

This is from here - http://www.crikey.com.au/?p=439885 , but you need a subscription to view it.

[JimC]

Seems to make a lot of sense...

[Hermit]

It hardly matters in the context of this argument, though. In either case, society vs parenting, the blame is being put somewhere else in addition to the perpetrator. In my thoroughly hopeless existential philosophical world view, bad parenting is just as much a product of society as any other individual bad behaviour is. Why should parents, who aren't free willed agents, wear any more blame than anyone else in society? Join me in existential no-hopedness, Jim!

I'm a teacher.

We fucking blame parents all the time!

You were a student once. Times change, I suppose. From this



to this

[JimC]

[pErvinalia]

Was misogyny the reason a 22-year-old man went on a killing spree? Hell yes. Were other factors at play here, too, such as mental health, a financially straitened mental health system and an American political system cowed by the NRA, leading to too much access to guns? Yes, yes and yes. And to say that doesn’t diminish the part played by any of these reasons. In fact, they underline the dangers in one another.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... MP=soc_567

[laklak]

Bottom line is some people are just assholes. Sometimes you can find reasons for their assholiness and sometimes you can't. Best just to shoot them.

[Mr.Samsa]

I assume it because there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. He had at some point seen someone to be diagnosed with Asperger's and reportedly saw a number of therapists afterwards, and nobody identified any other problems. By all accounts, the only evidence we have tells us that no problems in his functioning existed or were significant enough to warrant a mental illness label.

But this is where it all gets a bit subjectivey, doesn't it? Is being unable to have a relationship with a member of the opposite sex, when you clearly want one, a sign of not being able to function properly? I think that's a pretty big impairment, particularly how strongly he clearly felt about it. It annoyed him so much that was driven to mass murder. I guess the question is, was that impairment what led to the desire to murder women, or did that come from somewhere else?

Potentially it could be indicative of some disorder, most likely his Asperger's, but he was only 22 and not being able to find a relationship up until that point is pretty normal..

It could have, but since he wasn't mentally ill we know that it didn't.

Well, two points: 1. I'm talking philosophically here. Not via the current definition of "mental illness"; and 2. Just because he hadn't been diagnosed with a disorder that could lead to this type of behaviour, doesn't mean he didn't actually have one. A lot of mental illness goes undiagnosed.

To (1) I just don't think it has any value speculating in that way, we could blame anything bad on "mental illness" if we were going to do that but it adds nothing constructive or useful to the term. For (2), whilst mental illness can often go undiagnosed the point is more that he wasn't ignored or overlooked, he was checked out regularly and observed and there was still no evidence of mental illness. It's possible that everyone still missed it but it's absurd to argue he was mentally ill even though all the evidence suggests he wasn't.

The reason why we need to distinguish between causes of his behavior though is because how we view and explain these events affects how we treat people in the real world. If it's caused by misogyny, then we start trying to find problems to eliminate misogyny and prevent things like this happening again.

True, and I agree. My point with my salad further on was that I find it hard to make a distinction between a society and an individual. If the individual is largely the product of its social environment, then the two are almost one and the same. So, in this case, by saying the guy had a mental illness isn't to excuse his behaviour in anyway, it's to posit: Why did he become this type of person? And the obvious answer for me is a sick society. But as I said, even I feel uncomfortable with blaming society for everything. It seems kind of unsatisfactory, even if it is true.

I just don't see the value in adding the term "mental illness" in there. If society played a role in making him do the things he did (and it's almost certainly had some influence) then great, let's fix those aspects of society. The bit about mental illness is superfluous.

If we randomly throw in the word "mental illness" people might mistakenly start to believe that he was mentally ill, and that he did these things because of a mental illness. In that case we'd not only be ignoring the valid avenue of social change (i.e. addressing misogyny) but we'd also be unnecessarily adding to the stigma of people with mental illnesses and fueling the myth that you need to be mentally ill to murder, or that mental illnesses lead people to violent behaviors.

This is a problem of an ignorant public and one that believes in agency because they were taught it down through the generations because there wasn't any other suitable explanation for our existence. When people come to realise there doesn't need to be an explanation for our existence or any apparent agency, then these things you mention become meaningless. I don't know what the answer is. Do we continue to operate society under a myth, or do those of us who actually understand science and the myth of religion just keep our heads down and pretend nothing is out of order? I've done the latter my whole educated life. Probably will continue to do it. When you try and explain this to ordinary people their eyes glaze over and they think you are weirdo.

I don't think it has much to do with beliefs of agency and it's more just to do with how we've portrayed and stereotyped mental illness. They're seen as unhinged, unpredictable, dangerous, violent, and every time a mass murder occurs people spend the next month discussing the need for better mental health facilities (even though mental illness usually isn't a relevant factor). No matter what someone believes about agency, if everytime a big murder occurs everybody is talking about mentally ill people, then you're necessarily going to link the two.

Well, there are a couple of things which could interrupt your troublesome chain of thinking there. Firstly, we don't need to think of humans as deterministic machines given that our behavior is more accurately described by probabilistic laws. Secondly, even if we were deterministic that doesn't affect the likelihood of us having free will.

How so? If I input X and get Y out every time (i.e. deterministic) then where is the free will in that system??

Compatibilism. Most people conflate "Free will" with libertarian free will when there is no need to do so.

Thirdly, it's not hard to assign blame to deterministic machines if we think of blame as responsibility. A fuck up done by a machine is still the responsibility of the machine as that's what caused the fuck up

No, the person who programmed the machine is responsible for the fuckup. How could a deterministic machine that has no agency to change it's actions be responsible?? And to take the analogy across to this current issue, society is responsible for the fuckup programming this guy got. UNLESS, of course, there is some genetic or epigenetic reason for this guy being unable to behave appropriately. But even in that case, it's still not his fault as there is no "him". Hence why I feel it's a fairly unsatisfactory philosophical position to find oneself in.

Sure, but you're just distinguishing between ultimate and proximate causes. If there is a fire in my house and we figure out that it was caused by a faulty wire in my kitchen, then my first job would be to fix/replace that wire because it was responsible for the fire. Of course, the factory that made it could also be responsible and I'd petition for them to improve their safety standards, but it was still the faulty wire that caused the fire.

In terms of crime, even if we figure out that society turned someone into a psychopathic serial killer, it doesn't help us to fix some aspect of early childhood education that prevents serial killers from being made. We still have a serial killer on our hands.

And fourthly, whilst environment undeniably plays a huge role in a lot of our behaviors, we have to be careful not to tip too far into a blank slate way of thinking given that we know blank slatism is definitely wrong.

Blank slatism is definitely wrong when it comes to biological functioning as a whole (and certain subsystems). The question is how much does genetics directly affect behaviour? I'm sure it does to an extent and I will never be a blank slatist in terms of even behaviour, but I find myself thinking that social learning has a very large role to play in who are as individuals (which explains a lot of our behaviour).

Well I'd agree with you there.

Was misogyny the reason a 22-year-old man went on a killing spree? Hell yes. Were other factors at play here, too, such as mental health, a financially straitened mental health system and an American political system cowed by the NRA, leading to too much access to guns? Yes, yes and yes. And to say that doesn’t diminish the part played by any of these reasons. In fact, they underline the dangers in one another.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... MP=soc_567

Except, of course, there is no evidence that he was mentally ill...

[pErvinalia]

Well, there are a couple of things which could interrupt your troublesome chain of thinking there. Firstly, we don't need to think of humans as deterministic machines given that our behavior is more accurately described by probabilistic laws. Secondly, even if we were deterministic that doesn't affect the likelihood of us having free will.

How so? If I input X and get Y out every time (i.e. deterministic) then where is the free will in that system??

Compatibilism. Most people conflate "Free will" with libertarian free will when there is no need to do so.

You'll have to expand on that, as I don't see how that is relevant to what we are discussing. The "free will" that we are discussing is related to lack of agency. You can't be free to do anything if there is no independent 'you'. 'You' can't be held logically responsible for anything given 'you' have no control over the outcome of a series of inputs.

To continue on the machine analogy: If I create a machine that is programmed to kill any human (other than me) on sight, and it does that, who is to blame? Blaming the machine is ridiculous and illogical, given the machine is only an actor. I was the agency. I am responsible for the machine's actions and the one to blame.

Thirdly, it's not hard to assign blame to deterministic machines if we think of blame as responsibility. A fuck up done by a machine is still the responsibility of the machine as that's what caused the fuck up

No, the person who programmed the machine is responsible for the fuckup. How could a deterministic machine that has no agency to change it's actions be responsible?? And to take the analogy across to this current issue, society is responsible for the fuckup programming this guy got. UNLESS, of course, there is some genetic or epigenetic reason for this guy being unable to behave appropriately. But even in that case, it's still not his fault as there is no "him". Hence why I feel it's a fairly unsatisfactory philosophical position to find oneself in.

Sure, but you're just distinguishing between ultimate and proximate causes. If there is a fire in my house and we figure out that it was caused by a faulty wire in my kitchen, then my first job would be to fix/replace that wire because it was responsible for the fire. Of course, the factory that made it could also be responsible and I'd petition for them to improve their safety standards, but it was still the faulty wire that caused the fire.

I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make here. We are talking about a rational assessment of blame. Your analogy is flawed, given the electrician can't know all outcomes for a given set of inputs. But a programmer of a deterministic machine will know ALL outcomes for ALL inputs, in terms of the "agency" we have been speaking about.

In terms of crime, even if we figure out that society turned someone into a psychopathic serial killer, it doesn't help us to fix some aspect of early childhood education that prevents serial killers from being made. We still have a serial killer on our hands.

But we are talking about blame and agency. Your reply has nothing to do with that.

[SteveB]

The parents called the cops when he posted those weird videos on YouTube and they had him seeing a therapist from an early age. Seems very unpreventable.

[JimC]

The parents called the cops when he posted those weird videos on YouTube and they had him seeing a therapist from an early age. Seems very unpreventable.

It appears they did make an effort...

[Robert_S]

Ah, yes. It looks unpreventable.

Unpreventable as long as you ignore that woman blaming PUA MRA crap he was spewing. LOL, like Hitler's anti-Semitism was unpreventable, as long as you ignore the long history of anti-Semitism of the protestant and Catholics alike.

[JimC]

Ah, yes. It looks unpreventable.

Unpreventable as long as you ignore that woman blaming PUA MRA crap he was spewing. LOL, like Hitler's anti-Semitism was unpreventable, as long as you ignore the long history of anti-Semitism of the protestant and Catholics alike.

Are you implying that the existence of men's movements of those types, and the material they put on the internet is a contributing factor in this crime? Not agreeing or disagreeing, just wanting you to clarify...

[Robert_S]

Ah, yes. It looks unpreventable.

Unpreventable as long as you ignore that woman blaming PUA MRA crap he was spewing. LOL, like Hitler's anti-Semitism was unpreventable, as long as you ignore the long history of anti-Semitism of the protestant and Catholics alike.

Are you implying that the existence of men's movements of those types, and the material they put on the internet is a contributing factor in this crime? Not agreeing or disagreeing, just wanting you to clarify...

Yes. I am implying that. I don't see how you can deny it without also being the sort who would deny that religion and politics had something to do with 9-11.

[JimC]

Ah, yes. It looks unpreventable.

Unpreventable as long as you ignore that woman blaming PUA MRA crap he was spewing. LOL, like Hitler's anti-Semitism was unpreventable, as long as you ignore the long history of anti-Semitism of the protestant and Catholics alike.

Are you implying that the existence of men's movements of those types, and the material they put on the internet is a contributing factor in this crime? Not agreeing or disagreeing, just wanting you to clarify...

Yes. I am implying that. I don't see how you can deny it without also being the sort who would deny that religion and politics had something to do with 9-11.

Somewhat different. The broad existence of virulent misogyny in some men in a society (coupled with an aberrant personality in this case) is one thing, but to actually assign blame to a specific movement (however repulsive) may be a causative leap too far...

[Robert_S]

Ah, yes. It looks unpreventable.

Unpreventable as long as you ignore that woman blaming PUA MRA crap he was spewing. LOL, like Hitler's anti-Semitism was unpreventable, as long as you ignore the long history of anti-Semitism of the protestant and Catholics alike.

Are you implying that the existence of men's movements of those types, and the material they put on the internet is a contributing factor in this crime? Not agreeing or disagreeing, just wanting you to clarify...

Yes. I am implying that. I don't see how you can deny it without also being the sort who would deny that religion and politics had something to do with 9-11.

Somewhat different. The broad existence of virulent misogyny in some men in a society (coupled with an aberrant personality in this case) is one thing, but to actually assign blame to a specific movement (however repulsive) may be a causative leap too far...

LOL

Next you'll be telling me that racism had no influence in the actions of Anders Behring Breivik.