Read Elliot Rodger's elaborate attack plan

[cronus]

The guy's anger at not getting any seems to be mental illness as in his mind was infected by shitty viruses from society. But his utterly completely self-defeating reaction seems to stem from mental illness as in a neuro and/or chemical type of thing.

We seem to equate mental illness with mentally defective. If you fall into a sewer and get cholera it doesn't mean you were defective. It means you got a perfectly normal reaction to some shitty germs. Why don't we think the same way about minds and brains?

Mental illness like cancer is a generic term for all sorts of things. It is known(study 2008 somewhere) that folks who are the offspring of immigrants have a greater likelihood of becoming ill. English may be the same language but social differences between British and Americans are very different. Could have led him to social exclusion and the need to get in with the in crowd more than most. Look at Richard Dawkins? he had the drive few have to be with the top level of the 'in' crowd among his Oxford peers having been the progeny of white Africans. That is some powerful drive which when it becomes unlocked from social means of progression is likely to be a major social disruptive force.

[Svartalf]

It's definitely whack a doodle - iness ... I'm unhappy at not getting any in too long, I'm not planning to kill women who have rejected me, or any others.

[Robert_S]

In any case, fuck that asshole and all the assholes who think like him.

[Svartalf]

Great summation, Robert.

[JimC]

@Samsa... I guess the issue is - what distinguishes a person who embraces gross misogyny, or is a mass murderer for entirely anti-social reasons, from someone who suffers a mental illness? If we could identify all mental illness with a brain scan or a blood test or whatever, then we could definitively classify the two. But it would seem that some mental illness is defined by an inability to function in society independent of any physiological diagnostics. I'm not suggesting that mental illness needs to be measurable by biophysics, but more that embracing gross misogyny or mass murder or any number of other gross anti-social traits (for example, vehement racism, say) could be considered a mental illness. That's not to diminish personal responsibility for a crime. I and most other thinkers on this subject don't believe we have free will at all anyway, so there's no difference in admitting that society has caused this mental illness in certain people. I guess what I'm saying, and this is something I have thought about a lot over the years in relation to myself and others like me, is that society is probably responsible for a fair amount of behaviour that might be classed as symptoms of "mental illness". I just don't see the point in trying to dichotomously separate the two. It would seem to me that we would be missing something if we did that.

Is it always "society" that is to blame for non-genetically determined mental illness, or is incompetent parenting a factor?

Same thing I reckon. Where did the incompetent parenting come from?

Not impossible for there to be a link, but there doesn't have to be. Poor parenting can beget poor parenting when kids grow up. Additionally, there does seem to be a general tendency in many modern parents to refuse to impose clear boundaries, and little tendency to have high expectation of polite behaviour towards others, doing chores and working hard at school.

[Mr.Samsa]

I'm talking about a philosophical difference here. It's clear that currently things like mass murder and horrendously anti-social behaviour like gross misogyny or racism aren't necessarily considered symptoms of mental illness. I'm suggesting that they could be more seriously considered for the label of mental illness.

I get that, I'm just saying that this cannot happen without radically redefining what we mean by "mental illness" to the point that it will likely be meaningless. It would just become a moral label applied to people we think aren't "normal".

Until mental illness is 100% diagnosable by biophysical means, then we have to rely on behavioural indicators.

I think you have it a little backwards here. The possibility of biological markers for some disorders is interesting but it's never going to be the case that we'll have biological markers for most, let alone "all", mental disorders. And it's not because we aren't trying hard enough, or the brain is complicated, or anything like that. The fundamental hurdle is the fact that many mental disorders are behavioral disorders. We don't use behavioral markers because we don't have anything better; we use them because they are the most direct, the most objective, and the most informative points of information that we have. Even if we were able to find a bunch of biological markers for some mental disorders, we'd likely still keep using behavioral markers because they are more useful.

I just don't see why misogyny to the point that this kid displayed and acted out on wouldn't be considered a mental illness. He clearly couldn't function in this society.

But he could function in his daily life, he just decided he wanted to kill a bunch of people based on his ideological nonsense. Look at it this (extreme) way: suppose you have a young daughter who is brutally raped and murdered by some guy. You vow to get back at him and make him pay, and a few months later you are able to mow him down with your car. Are you mentally ill because you are so upset at what happened to your daughter that you wanted vengeance? Surely not. But that isn't to say that your actions would be "normal" or "good", they're just not (necessarily) indicative of a mental illness.

So how can we objectively distinguish between the validity of your actions there and the actions of Rodger? We can't. We're not here to judge whether someone's actions are "justified" or "reasonable". If they can get out of bed in the morning, dress themselves, feed themselves, make some money and then tuck themselves in at night, then they are "mentally healthy". If we want to extend the concept of mental illness to address moral failings then we can try, but I'd argue that it's a fruitless endeavour.

Why wouldn't behavioral indicators be relevant?

Of course they are relevant. I never meant to imply that they weren't. The point is that until we can identify it 100% with brain chemistry measures, then we by necessity must rely on behavioural indicators. I.e. gross misogyny to the point this guy took it seems like a pretty good indicator of behavioural abnormality to me.

I was just trying to point out that you seem to be prioritising "brain chemistry" over behavioral markers.

And I'd agree that his behavior is 'abnormal', I'm just not convinced it meets the definition of mental illness that we currently use. I mean, I find people pour milk into the bowl before their cereal to be displaying severely abnormal behavior but I'm not gonna try to slap them with a diagnosis on that basis.

Absolutely, it could be an indicator, symptom, or criteria for a mental disorder. Just not in itself.

Speaking philosophically, tell me why it shouldn't be, in and of itself?

Because it doesn't even vaguely come close to matching our understanding of mental illness. He's still able to make decisions for himself, feed himself, even hold down a job, etc, and then he's chosen to engage in a violent act.

Why would we need to cover criminal behaviors with the use of the label 'mental illness'? What value does it add to our understanding?

quote]
I'd broadly agree there. It doesn't really matter how a criminal behavior came about, all that matters is whether it can be reduced/eliminated, and if it's permanent, what do we do with these people. But that line of reasoning doesn't require us to invent mental illnesses to explain behavior though.

But behaviour IS the criteria for a hell of a lot of mental illness. No need to invent anything.[/quote]

Behavioral markers are used, yes, but the behaviors displayed don't match any known mental disorder and aren't consistent with the entire concept of mental illness in the first place.

I've thought (philosophically, as opposed to in an expert capacity) about this for a long time now. I suffer from depression and formerly anxiety, and probably a few other things as well. I've been diagnosed with a mental illness and by the definition of a mental illness, I have one. But there have been no biochemical studies of my brain to indicate that there is some genetic or epigenetic reason leading to chemical distortion in my brain. The key criteria is that i simply don't fit into this society. So I ask myself, is the problem me, or is the problem society? And yes, I'm arrogant enough to think that the problem is with society. Perhaps I think and act perfectly rationally, but the systems of society don't. If the criteria for my illness is that I don't fit into a society that I don't even want to fit into, then something isn't quite right. Of course, this is all simplified and philosophical in thought. I'm not an expert in this by any sense, so I'm open to being corrected on how this works.

Generally mental illness is relative to the society it exists within, yes. If we lived in a world where we could get everything we needed from lying in bed all day, then some instances of major depression wouldn't be a disorder any more as it wouldn't affect your life.

But the point of course is that we don't live in a world like that. If your behavior is fucked up because of a brain abnormality or just disordered thinking, because of self-initiation or environmental influence, it doesn't matter. The bottom line is that you are having trouble functioning in the world you currently inhabit. The solution is to try to help you cope in that world, whether that world is healthy or not.

With that said, there are branches and approaches within psychology that aim to adjust society to promote healthier behaviors but they are long-term plans that likely won't help you right now.

[pErvinalia]

@Samsa... I guess the issue is - what distinguishes a person who embraces gross misogyny, or is a mass murderer for entirely anti-social reasons, from someone who suffers a mental illness? If we could identify all mental illness with a brain scan or a blood test or whatever, then we could definitively classify the two. But it would seem that some mental illness is defined by an inability to function in society independent of any physiological diagnostics. I'm not suggesting that mental illness needs to be measurable by biophysics, but more that embracing gross misogyny or mass murder or any number of other gross anti-social traits (for example, vehement racism, say) could be considered a mental illness. That's not to diminish personal responsibility for a crime. I and most other thinkers on this subject don't believe we have free will at all anyway, so there's no difference in admitting that society has caused this mental illness in certain people. I guess what I'm saying, and this is something I have thought about a lot over the years in relation to myself and others like me, is that society is probably responsible for a fair amount of behaviour that might be classed as symptoms of "mental illness". I just don't see the point in trying to dichotomously separate the two. It would seem to me that we would be missing something if we did that.

Is it always "society" that is to blame for non-genetically determined mental illness, or is incompetent parenting a factor?

Same thing I reckon. Where did the incompetent parenting come from?

Not impossible for there to be a link, but there doesn't have to be. Poor parenting can beget poor parenting when kids grow up. Additionally, there does seem to be a general tendency in many modern parents to refuse to impose clear boundaries, and little tendency to have high expectation of polite behaviour towards others, doing chores and working hard at school.

That's part of societal attitudes, Jim. It doesn't just arise out of nowhere.

[pErvinalia]

But he could function in his daily life,

How do you know that? And how do you define that? I would have thought being unable to interact with 50% of the population without causing severe mental distress to himself would be a good sign that he can't function in daily life. You go on to say:

Because it doesn't even vaguely come close to matching our understanding of mental illness. He's still able to make decisions for himself, feed himself, even hold down a job,

I can do all those things and I have a mental illness.

The stuff about biochemical (which is what I should have said instead of biophysical) vs behavioural is not to suggest that we need to find biochemical markers to identify or explain mental illness, but to point out that if we are solely relying on behavioural markers then I assume there is no way that we can tease out whether the individual's behaviour is due some underlying brain disorder or whether they are socially learned behaviours. Or, as I've postulated in earlier posts, whether there is any meaningful difference at all. Hence why I think it's a false dichotomy to try and pitch this issues as a battle between a sexist/misogynist society and a mentally ill individual. The former could easily have lead to the latter.

I must admit, when one reaches the point of viewing humans as deterministic machines with no free will, these sorts of discussions get harder for me. It's hard to attribute blame. And that doesn't sit easy with me (and probably a lot of people who hold the same views as me). I think i've been getting closer and closer to the blank slate model for behaviour over the years. I can't help but think that we are so much the result of what we have learned from our parents, peers and society. And when you get to that point, I wind up blaming society for everything. I'm not entirely sure how much good that does.

[Mr.Samsa]

But he could function in his daily life,

How do you know that? And how do you define that? I would have thought being unable to interact with 50% of the population without causing severe mental distress to himself would be a good sign that he can't function in daily life.

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.

You go on to say:

Because it doesn't even vaguely come close to matching our understanding of mental illness. He's still able to make decisions for himself, feed himself, even hold down a job,

I can do all those things and I have a mental illness.

Yeah, there was an "etc" after your snip there. I was briefly summarising a number of issues relating to functioning rather than giving a complete exhaustive list, but if you truly experience no impairment of functioning and/or personal distress then you probably shouldn't have been diagnosed with anything. I'm willing to bet, however, that you do have some issues with functioning (especially without meds or therapy) caused by any disorders you have and that's why you were diagnosed.

The stuff about biochemical (which is what I should have said instead of biophysical) vs behavioural is not to suggest that we need to find biochemical markers to identify or explain mental illness, but to point out that if we are solely relying on behavioural markers then I assume there is no way that we can tease out whether the individual's behaviour is due some underlying brain disorder or whether they are socially learned behaviours. Or, as I've postulated in earlier posts, whether there is any meaningful difference at all.

The last part is right: there is no meaningful difference.

Hence why I think it's a false dichotomy to try and pitch this issues as a battle between a sexist/misogynist society and a mentally ill individual. The former could easily have lead to the latter.

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

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.

I must admit, when one reaches the point of viewing humans as deterministic machines with no free will, these sorts of discussions get harder for me. It's hard to attribute blame. And that doesn't sit easy with me (and probably a lot of people who hold the same views as me). I think i've been getting closer and closer to the blank slate model for behaviour over the years. I can't help but think that we are so much the result of what we have learned from our parents, peers and society. And when you get to that point, I wind up blaming society for everything. I'm not entirely sure how much good that does.

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. 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 - and as such we'd need to either fix the machine or get rid of it.

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.

[pErvinalia]

But he could function in his daily life,

How do you know that? And how do you define that? I would have thought being unable to interact with 50% of the population without causing severe mental distress to himself would be a good sign that he can't function in daily life.

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?

Hence why I think it's a false dichotomy to try and pitch this issues as a battle between a sexist/misogynist society and a mentally ill individual. The former could easily have lead to the latter.

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.

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.

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 must admit, when one reaches the point of viewing humans as deterministic machines with no free will, these sorts of discussions get harder for me. It's hard to attribute blame. And that doesn't sit easy with me (and probably a lot of people who hold the same views as me). I think i've been getting closer and closer to the blank slate model for behaviour over the years. I can't help but think that we are so much the result of what we have learned from our parents, peers and society. And when you get to that point, I wind up blaming society for everything. I'm not entirely sure how much good that does.

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??

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.

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).

[JimC]

rEvolutionist wrote:

...society is responsible for the fuckup programming this guy got...

I think that has the potential for absolving pathetic parenting decisions. Aspects of society may have an affect on poor parenting, and there may be ways for more effective parenting strategies to be disseminated, but, in many ways, poor behaviour without a biochemical reason needs to be slated home to poor parenting, with the proviso that even excellent parenting is no guarantee of raising ethically sound humans; statistically, however, it greatly improves the chances.

[pErvinalia]

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!

[JimC]

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!

[pErvinalia]

rEvolutionist wrote:

...society is responsible for the fuckup programming this guy got...

I think that has the potential for absolving pathetic parenting decisions. Aspects of society may have an affect on poor parenting, and there may be ways for more effective parenting strategies to be disseminated, but, in many ways, poor behaviour without a biochemical reason needs to be slated home to poor parenting, with the proviso that even excellent parenting is no guarantee of raising ethically sound humans; statistically, however, it greatly improves the chances.

Just to expand on this a bit, I'd be interested to hear your views as a teacher. My ex-wife was a teacher, and while she said there is more often than not a direct correlation between bad parents and bad kids, she said that there's still enough cases of bad kids with fantastic parents that you can't state the former as a definitive relationship.

[JimC]

rEvolutionist wrote:

...society is responsible for the fuckup programming this guy got...

I think that has the potential for absolving pathetic parenting decisions. Aspects of society may have an affect on poor parenting, and there may be ways for more effective parenting strategies to be disseminated, but, in many ways, poor behaviour without a biochemical reason needs to be slated home to poor parenting, with the proviso that even excellent parenting is no guarantee of raising ethically sound humans; statistically, however, it greatly improves the chances.

Just to expand on this a bit, I'd be interested to hear your views as a teacher. My ex-wife was a teacher, and while she said there is more often than not a direct correlation between bad parents and bad kids, she said that there's still enough cases of bad kids with fantastic parents that you can't state the former as a definitive relationship.

Some truth in this; however, the first part is important. If you have parents that are either abusive or totally ineffective, it would be very unusual for them to have happy, well adjusted kids. But you will always see a certain proportion of problem kids with rather bewildered parents, who are (at least as far as you can see) doing all the things that usually lead to kids on the right track.