Read Elliot Rodger's elaborate attack plan

[Mr.Samsa]

You've missed the point, slightly. It's not that the single event of murder is the defining feature. I would imagine it's one extreme symptom of whatever mental disorder the person might be suffering from. My hypothetical line of reasoning would be: If a person can come to the conclusion that killing a person (or even worse, multiple unrelated people) is OK with such specious reasoning as this tool employed, then there is probably some form of mental illness distorting their thinking and behaviour. I'm not sure why that couldn't be a reasonable conclusion.

I'm not sure I missed the point as that's what I was responding to. It can be a result of mental disorder but I don't see how coming to an unpopular conclusion is necessarily a symptom of a mental disorder. Some people are just horrible individuals but not mentally ill.

I haven't fully followed this event, but it was discussed on a panel show last night here in Oz that I just watched this morning. From that and other pieces i gathered, it seems that this issue has become a battleground about misogyny vs mental illness. I think both issues deserve lots of light shone on them, and I'd hope this whole thing doesn't devolve into a false dichotomy between the two different views. It's entirely possible that this is an issue of both, as opposed to one or the other.

I just hate how these issues turn in to people redefining mental illness, and then inventing a disorder, in order to morally judge someone for their actions. The guy made a number of videos, wrote essays and manifestos, etc, where he says: "I hate women and I'm going to kill them". There is no evidence of mental illness, no symptoms, nothing to indicate he was mentally ill in any shape or form - and yet everyone is so eager to talk about the mental health system.

How about we just address the fact that misogyny plays a major role in many mass murders (more so than any mental illness component)?

[Hermit]

You've missed the point, slightly. It's not that the single event of murder is the defining feature. I would imagine it's one extreme symptom of whatever mental disorder the person might be suffering from. My hypothetical line of reasoning would be: If a person can come to the conclusion that killing a person (or even worse, multiple unrelated people) is OK with such specious reasoning as this tool employed, then there is probably some form of mental illness distorting their thinking and behaviour. I'm not sure why that couldn't be a reasonable conclusion.

I'm not sure I missed the point as that's what I was responding to. It can be a result of mental disorder but I don't see how coming to an unpopular conclusion is necessarily a symptom of a mental disorder. Some people are just horrible individuals but not mentally ill.

I haven't fully followed this event, but it was discussed on a panel show last night here in Oz that I just watched this morning. From that and other pieces i gathered, it seems that this issue has become a battleground about misogyny vs mental illness. I think both issues deserve lots of light shone on them, and I'd hope this whole thing doesn't devolve into a false dichotomy between the two different views. It's entirely possible that this is an issue of both, as opposed to one or the other.

I just hate how these issues turn in to people redefining mental illness, and then inventing a disorder, in order to morally judge someone for their actions. The guy made a number of videos, wrote essays and manifestos, etc, where he says: "I hate women and I'm going to kill them". There is no evidence of mental illness, no symptoms, nothing to indicate he was mentally ill in any shape or form - and yet everyone is so eager to talk about the mental health system.

How about we just address the fact that misogyny plays a major role in many mass murders (more so than any mental illness component)?

Discounting the role of mental disorder was pretty much the general drift of my post here. Looks like nobody bothered to read it.

[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.

[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?

[Mr.Samsa]

Discounting the role of mental disorder was pretty much the general drift of my post here. Looks like nobody bothered to read it.

I read it. I agreed with it so didn't bother replying to it.

@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?

I gave a number of the features of what constitutes a mental disorder in my earlier post and pointed out how it wouldn't apply to things we just disagree with, like murder.

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.

Why wouldn't behavioral indicators be relevant?

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.

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

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.

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.

[cronus]

Most folks with mental illness don't do this. They are in many cases having to deal with the double jeopardy of illness and social stigma. Defining these actions as a result of mental illness after the fact is neither helping those who have had a valid designation, nor will it help identify the next elliot, those who have no designation and could be your friendly and polite next door neighbor. Those who hate women sometimes shoot em too, like those who hate Jews or Homosexuals. Finding a fixation of hatred is halfway to identifying these sort of people. The other half is not to mistake 'hate' and 'mental illness' as the same thing and have limited human resources target the wrong crowd. Only people helped by saying 'mental illness done it' are the gun lobby who would benefit via the crowds long standing prejudice to say guns are mostly OK, except for a very tiny minority.

[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?

[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?

I gave a number of the features of what constitutes a mental disorder in my earlier post and pointed out how it wouldn't apply to things we just disagree with, like murder.

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

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.

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'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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

[pErvinalia]

Most folks with mental illness don't do this. They are in many cases having to deal with the double jeopardy of illness and social stigma. Defining these actions as a result of mental illness after the fact is neither helping those who have had a valid designation, nor will it help identify the next elliot, those who have no designation and could be your friendly and polite next door neighbor.

Sorry, but this is an inane line of reasoning. Most folks with mental illness don't commit suicide. Does that mean that people who commit suicide can't be mentally ill?

Those who hate women sometimes shoot em too, like those who hate Jews or Homosexuals. Finding a fixation of hatred is halfway to identifying these sort of people. The other half is not to mistake 'hate' and 'mental illness' as the same thing and have limited human resources target the wrong crowd. Only people helped by saying 'mental illness done it' are the gun lobby who would benefit via the crowds long standing prejudice to say guns are mostly OK, except for a very tiny minority.

You are just taking the diametrically opposed point in the dichotomy. Just as irrational as saying that mental illness dunnit. I'd suggest it's perfectly reasonable to posit that it was a mix of both. So many people these days want to take an absolutist position on something as a reaction to what they perceive to be the opposite absolute. Each position is just as irrational as the other.

[pErvinalia]

Just to be clear, my thinking on this subject is that it doesn't make a lot of sense to me to separate the environmental conditions prevalent in a society and the environmental conditions that can be identified on an individual level. They are both environmental conditions and they both go into making us the people that we are. And until we can identify a chemical imbalance that causes a person to vehemently hate certain other people, for example, then we are stuck relying on behavioural indicators and environmental factors.

[cronus]

Start with hate crimes and use a broad array of cultural/medical/educational/religious but mostly social factors to narrow in on the risk characters. Take them out and put them in the desert in a community of their own.

[pErvinalia]

Or more humanely, offer (and in some cases being insistent) treat them.

[pErvinalia]

Ironically, despite my argument here, I reckon society is to blame for a hell of a lot of undesirable behaviour. It's my view that a lot of depressed people and people with anxieties aren't really mentally ill. Society is mentally ill. We need to fix society, more so than individuals. Treating individuals in a sick society is like plugging leaks in a sinking ship.

[pErvinalia]

To clarify even further (ffs, shut up rEv!)... I reckon unless we can identify the brain fuckup that is causing someone like this cunt to do what he did, then there is actually no point in distinguishing between "sexist society made him do it" and "mental illness lead to this". It's functionally the same thing, in my book. A sexist society led this twit to mental illness which all resulted in him killing a bunch of people.

Don't make me clarify again!

[Robert_S]

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?