Sociopathy, bullies, guns, media, ignorance - Not mental illness

[Integral]

Oh my god, cops are psychopaths And they carry guns around... run... they're going to kill 32 people as a retaliation of being bullied as a kid.

When are you going to contribute something meaningful to this conversation?

 

[Mathgician]

When are you going to contribute something meaningful to this conversation?

As meaningful as cops are borderline psychopaths?

 

[chroot]

As to schoolyard bullies, I am a bit appalled at both Russ's and Waren's dismissal of this rite of childhood torture. It leads me to a conclusion which I will not state.

If your conclusion is that I was a bully, you're wrong. I read computer books on the bus rides back and forth to school, and was beaten up so frequently that I ended up skipping something like 50 days of school in the eigth grade. Throughout the year, I had two teeth knocked out and three fingers broken. I would have had to repeat the grade, except a new school counselor reviewed my file over the summer. I had 99th percentile standardized test scores, yet was a egregious truant and was failing all my classes. She ended up getting me put into a college prep program at another school, and I completely turned my academics around.

Yet... I've never considered shooting anyone, much less an entire building full of innocent children. That's why I tend to dismiss the "bullies caused it" theory. Such a thought process seems asinine to me.

- Warren

 

[Huckleberry]

We know that we cannot create a foolproof system. No matter how well you design it, nature compensates by creating greater fools. It must be like that with mass murderers, serial killers and other looney tunes. Millions of people who co-exist and interact all the time will produce individually unpredictable outcomes.

This perception is a part of the problem. We consider people like Cho to be fools and looney toons because we are shocked and frightened by their violent actions without understanding what caused them. If we understood better Cho's personal difficulties we might grieve for Cho as much as any of the people that he killed. It seems obvious to me that he blamed society for his inability to communicate. How much responsibility does society actually have for Cho's mental illness? We should take a close look at how much we failed him.

 

[radou]

This perception is a part of the problem. We consider people like Cho to be fools and looney toons because we are shocked and frightened by their violent actions without understanding what caused them. If we understood better Cho's personal difficulties we might grieve for Cho as much as any of the people that he killed. It seems obvious to me that he blamed society for his inability to communicate. How much responsibility does society actually have for Cho's mental illness? We should take a close look at how much we failed him.

Good reasoning, but I'm afraid that intelligent/effective solutions, if such exist at all, cost too much money to be "put in buisness".

 

[Astronuc]

a new school counselor reviewed my file over the summer. I had 99th percentile standardized test scores, yet was an egregious truant and was failing all my classes. She ended up getting me put into a college prep program at another school, and I completely turned my academics around.

But what if the new counselor hadn't been there? The outcome might have been very different.

It seems that Cho did not have the benefit of someone who could stand up for or support him. Rather, he became isolated. I grieve for his parents, who have lost a son and who have to live with what he has done, but at the same time, I wonder why they didn't notice something was wrong. They made a statement that they never would have believed that Cho was capable of something so violent. I wonder how many families exist in which there is such a distance between parents and a child.

Huckleberry makes some good points and asks pertinent questions that need to be considered.

We can make a case of self-responsibility, and we expect adults to be more or less self-sufficient and responsible. In reality, some members of society have some difficult or in some cases a lot of difficulty being self-sufficient and responsible. How do we as a society deal with that?

With regard to personal freedom vs public safety - consider that public safety comes down to personal safety. The 32 people killed at VT were 32 individuals, and I am sure they and their families would have never suspected that their lives were in potential danger. Of course not, but how would they? The expectation of most persons is that they are safe out there in the world, i.e. the risk to themselves or loved ones (of injury or death) is small, otherwise why go out?

 

[blogger1]

... I grieve for his parents, who have lost a son and who have to live with what he has done, but at the same time, I wonder why they didn't notice something was wrong. They made a statement that they never would have believed that Cho was capable of something so violent. I wonder how many families exist in which there is such a distance between parents and a child...

I think he just didn't want to mess things up more. They'll be sad.
If they knew in advance something would happen, that wouldn't be called enexpected.
There are people also who never actually pay attention to their relatives, for example

 

[Astronuc]

He was not diagnosed with any mental illness at the time he bought the weapons, nor was he on any kind of medication or treatment program.

Apparently he was found to have mental illness and to be a danger to himself.

U.S. Law Made Killer Ineligible to Buy Gun
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/21/us/21guns.html

WASHINGTON, April 20 — Under federal law, the Virginia Tech gunman Seung-Hui Cho should have been prohibited from buying a gun after a Virginia court declared him to be a danger to himself in late 2005 and sent him for psychiatric treatment, a state official and several legal experts said Friday.

Federal law prohibits anyone who has been “adjudicated as a mental defective,” as well as those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility, from buying a gun.

The special justice’s order in late 2005 that directed Mr. Cho to seek outpatient treatment and declared him to be mentally ill and an imminent danger to himself fits the federal criteria and should have immediately disqualified him, said Richard J. Bonnie, chairman of the Supreme Court of Virginia’s Commission on Mental Health Law Reform.

A spokesman for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives also said that if Mr. Cho had been found mentally defective by a court, he should have been denied the right to purchase a gun.

The federal law defines adjudication as a mental defective to include “determination by a court, board, commission or other lawful authority” that as a result of mental illness, the person is a “danger to himself or others.”

Mr. Cho’s ability to buy two guns despite his history has brought new attention to the adequacy of background checks that scrutinize potential gun buyers. And since federal gun laws depend on states for enforcement, the failure of Virginia to flag Mr. Cho highlights the often incomplete information provided by states to federal authorities.

Currently, only 22 states submit any mental health records to the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System, the Federal Bureau of Investigation said in a statement on Thursday. Virginia is the leading state in reporting disqualifications based on mental health criteria for the federal check system, the statement said.

Virginia state law on mental health disqualifications to firearms purchases, however, is worded slightly differently from the federal statute. So the form that Virginia courts use to notify state police about a mental health disqualification addresses only the state criteria, which list two potential categories that would warrant notification to the state police: someone who was “involuntarily committed” or ruled mentally “incapacitated.”

 

[out of whack]

This perception is a part of the problem. We consider people like Cho to be fools and looney toons because we are shocked and frightened by their violent actions without understanding what caused them. If we understood better Cho's personal difficulties we might grieve for Cho as much as any of the people that he killed.

Unfortunately we may be able to understand in hindsight what motivated one mass murderer, or we may be able to make believe that we understand it, again in hindsight, and feel a little bit better about the events. But we still cannot predict the next one because not every bomb is triggered by the same things. The next mass murderer will also act foolishly and go looney (excuse the technical terminology) for his own reasons. After the fact we will also try to analyze this person's motivations in hindsight.

It seems obvious to me that he blamed society for his inability to communicate. How much responsibility does society actually have for Cho's mental illness? We should take a close look at how much we failed him.

This is the same problem as how to determine who can own firearms. We don't have the means to know who needs psychological attention any more than we have the means to know who should be denied a firearm. And we don't have the means to provide the help to all these potential shooters who may or may not be an actual danger.

About bullying, it may be a strong factor, I don't know if there are stats on the number of mass killers among the bullies and the bullied. Regardless, how would you make all mean school kids nice to the nerdy? For centuries our predominantly Christian population has been subjected to sermons about being kind to your fellow man, yet bullies continue to abound. Parents and children know the rule, but putting it into practice seems beyond reach.

 

[Huckleberry]

Unfortunately we may be able to understand in hindsight what motivated one mass murderer, or we may be able to make believe that we understand it, again in hindsight, and feel a little bit better about the events. But we still cannot predict the next one because not every bomb is triggered by the same things. The next mass murderer will also act foolishly and go looney (excuse the technical terminology) for his own reasons. After the fact we will also try to analyze this person's motivations in hindsight.

I do not consider human psychology to be make believe. The causes of mental illness are very real, just difficult to quantify. With more study in this field I see no reason to believe that we can't learn how to disarm these patterns of mental illness before it results in violence. In your scenario that would be similar to disarming the bomb by never creating it. If society stigmatizes those with metal illnesses as foolish and looney then others suffering from them will avoid seeking help, making their problems worse. I consider this to be a type of prejudice on par with any other. The prejudice is what I consider foolish and looney and when it is directed at real people or serious discussion it should be chastised. We certainly can't help these people by shunning them from society more than they already have been, especially in a society based on individual freedoms.

We will never find any means to help if we don't accept responsibility for individuals in our society. Study has shown that many of the environmental factors that contribute to mental illness are exactly because these people aren't able to function properly in society. A child has little control over the environment that they develop in. It seems to me that society pushes some people away as failures rather than accepting them for contributing to the best of their ability. There is a lack of responsibility of society towards the individual that is evident from all the ignorant verbal blasting I've been reading lately. We blame others unjustly when we fear taking responsibility for ourselves. Rather than tearing each other down with hostility such as prejudice we should help others stand up so they can function independently. It shouldn't be any surprise that a person reacts in a physically violent manner when they are acted upon in an equally emotionally violent manner. Their words don't carry the strength of all the words that are used against them. Physical violence is the only way that they can express themselves that will get any attention.

About bullying, it may be a strong factor, I don't know if there are stats on the number of mass killers among the bullies and the bullied. Regardless, how would you make all mean school kids nice to the nerdy? For centuries our predominantly Christian population has been subjected to sermons about being kind to your fellow man, yet bullies continue to abound. Parents and children know the rule, but putting it into practice seems beyond reach.

This is a tough question. I can think of two things that may help.
1. More of an emphasis on communication and social skills in early development involving both cooperative and competitive activities.
2. More social activity in families like vacations, family meal time, reunions, or church. Learning family values are useful for adapting in society.

 

[out of whack]

I do not consider human psychology to be make believe.

It seems that I didn't express myself clearly enough. Even an exact science will fail to reach a correct conclusion if you don't have all the facts. The situation is nearly impossible when dealing with mercurial individuals whose past interactions are impossible to know. Any conclusion we reach is likely to be a guess, but we will want to believe that our guess is the right one. Still, our make believe explanations can at least appease us. It is simply prudent not to take our conclusions as gospel and change everything in society based on guesses. We must be wise enough to know what we don't know.

The prejudice is what I consider foolish and looney and when it is directed at real people or serious discussion it should be chastised.

I hope you can see that I was insulting the mass murderer and not the social recluse. I did mean and intend to insult the donkey hole who indiscriminantly killed innocent people he didn't even know. There is no excuse for that. We can come up with explanations and sequences of causes and effects, fine. The murderer is still beneath contempt in my book.

 

[proton]

Regardless, how would you make all mean school kids nice to the nerdy? For centuries our predominantly Christian population has been subjected to sermons about being kind to your fellow man, yet bullies continue to abound. Parents and children know the rule, but putting it into practice seems beyond reach.

Bullies bully because they think the nerds are treated too kindly while the bullies aren't getting enough respect from those they look up to (the popular kids). Bullies also see a part of themselves in nerds they resent (loners, etc)

 

[Huckleberry]

It is simply prudent not to take our conclusions as gospel and change everything in society based on guesses. We must be wise enough to know what we don't know.

It seems to me that your logic leads to the conclusion that we will never be able to understand completely, so we should never accept responibility for our mistakes. There's no formula to determine the effect of prejudice on society, but I'm pretty sure society can do without it. Society is a living system that is continually changing. We should take the responsibility as intelligent beings to change it in a direction that is suited to improving our commonwealth. Imo, the very worst thing we could do is to do nothing.

I hope you can see that I was insulting the mass murderer and not the social recluse.

Are we different people from one hour to the next? It only took Cho a few hours to perform the act of mass murder, but was this not a process that was years in the making? In one sentence you say that we shouldn't change everything based on guesses and in another you say you intended to insult Cho. Insulting someone is a social action against that person and people like them. I wonder how many donkey holes, out of ignorance, slung insults at Cho in his lifetime. What I suggest is that, rather than contempt for people we don't understand, we should feel compassion. The murderer is to blame for his actions, but who is to blame for creating the murderer? Does society have no responsibility toward that end?

 

[out of whack]

It seems to me that your logic leads to the conclusion that we will never be able to understand completely, so we should never accept responibility for our mistakes.

That does not follow at all. There are plenty of things we don't understand and we continue to make best-guess efforts. But prudence is needed. What I am warning against is jumping to conclusions such as "guns are to blame" or "bullying is to blame" or "prejudice is to blame" or whatever other single factor people tend to jump to.

There's no formula to determine the effect of prejudice on society, but I'm pretty sure society can do without it.

That's not in dispute.

We should take the responsibility as intelligent beings to change it in a direction that is suited to improving our commonwealth.

That's not in dispute either.

Imo, the very worst thing we could do is to do nothing.

We could actually do worse. We could start to supervise the mentally deficient and exacerbate the problem. We could start to police school yards and make different individuals feel persecuted, with worse results. I can think of various well-intentioned actions that could be worse if we act imprudently or without proper analysis.

Are we different people from one hour to the next?

We certainly act differently from one hour to the next as we have just seen.

Insulting someone is a social action against that person and people like them.

I have no problem insulting one mass murderer along with all other mass murderers of their kind.

I wonder how many donkey holes, out of ignorance, slung insults at Cho in his lifetime.

They should not have done that. Not until last week.

What I suggest is that, rather than contempt for people we don't understand, we should feel compassion. The murderer is to blame for his actions, but who is to blame for creating the murderer? Does society have no responsibility toward that end?

The responsibility for murder remains with the murderer. You can spin it any way you like, it will not turn these events into justifiable homicide. Having said that, we obviously can improve our society through compassion and understanding. I do try to be kind to everyone I know regardless of their job, gender, age, race... But if you shoot at me I will indeed call you a name. Accept that.

 

[Huckleberry]

That does not follow at all. There are plenty of things we don't understand and we continue to make best-guess efforts. But prudence is needed. What I am warning against is jumping to conclusions such as "guns are to blame" or "bullying is to blame" or "prejudice is to blame" or whatever other single factor people tend to jump to.

You are right. There is no one source, but all of those things can contribute to the problem. Prudence is needed.

We could actually do worse. We could start to supervise the mentally deficient and exacerbate the problem. We could start to police school yards and make different individuals feel persecuted, with worse results. I can think of various well-intentioned actions that could be worse if we act imprudently or without proper analysis.

If I understand this correctly then I agree completely. We shouldn't do those things any more. Infringing on the rights of individuals is not an acceptable method of prevention.

I have no problem insulting one mass murderer along with all other mass murderers of their kind.

I think this is the main point that we disagree on. I'm not in any way justifying violent action. I'm just saying there is a cause for that action that may lie in the environment of the murderer. We must each take responsibility for our individual actions, but this is only half the responsibility. There is an equal and opposite force that drove Cho to make the poor decisions he did. By using meaningless insults against him we not only justify his reaction, we deny our own responsibility to society.

 

[Mk]

I think any of us could be called "bullied as a kid." (or maybe it was just me) But what is the difference? How we took it? I don't think the severity necessarily has to do with it. It's not being bullied as a kid that creates psychopaths or anything.

 

[Art]

I think any of us could be called "bullied as a kid." (or maybe it was just me) But what is the difference? How we took it? I don't think the severity necessarily has to do with it. It's not being bullied as a kid that creates psychopaths or anything.

I agree. Everybody in life has some cross to bear but most of us don't go out and commit mass murders. Some people are just born sick and twisted and you can pamper them and sympathise with them all you like and they'll still be sick and twisted as their brains aren't wired like normal people.

For people like this I'd opt for a frontal lobotomy, that should curb any murderous urges.

 

[mathPimpDaddy]

I agree. Everybody in life has some cross to bear but most of us don't go out and commit mass murders. Some people are just born sick and twisted and you can pamper them and sympathise with them all you like and they'll still be sick and twisted as their brains aren't wired like normal people.

For people like this I'd opt for a frontal lobotomy, that should curb any murderous urges.

So much commonsense art. We can philosophize and analyze and blame all we want, but all it comes down to is making wise decisions based on facts.

 

[BillJx]

It is my belief that most cops are borderline psychopath so you want ME to TRUST them with the only guns? No way!

I'm glad I don't live where you live. My daughter was subjected to a long and intensive pre-screening process before being accepted. It only reinforced the high opinion I already have of her.

 

[Huckleberry]

Good reasoning, but I'm afraid that intelligent/effective solutions, if such exist at all, cost too much money to be "put in buisness".

Maybe, but maybe not. There could be simple solutions such as teaching adolescents conflict resolution skills that could benefit all of them later in life. Since the effectiveness of any program will be difficult to determine, it is the more economical proposals that should be attempted first.

Here is an interesting article. A psychological profile has been made of 28 adolescent murderers. Here are some of the common characteristics.

1. Male Caucasian;
2. Lonely and feel rejected by others;
3. Angry toward someone or something;
4. Lack positive relationships and communication in school and family;
5. Obsessions with violent acts;
6. Obsessions with guns and other weapons;
7. Substance abuse;
8. Bullied and demeaned by other students;
9. Family pathology (violent home life, parental neglect, insecurity, etc.);
10. Depression;
11. May show delusion of grandeur or other mental illness;

http://counselingoutfitters.com/Chandras2.htm

How many children that exhibit these symptoms are actually examined? Maybe a psyche exam looking for these characteristics for students entering a new school would be a good idea. That way each student would have several tests under in the course of their education.

Bullying alone isn't the cause of these things but bullying accompanied by poor communication skills and a poor home life can lead to a person with no 'out', no way to resolve their dilemma. They begin the internal thought processes that lead to mental illness. In adolescents this is especially dangerous because their brains are still forming the neural pathways. They only know how to react defensively to any situation regardless of intention. Their anger results in violence because they have no method to resolve conflict.

 

[Loren Booda]

Great list, Huck. I can only imagine how I would have developed had I not loving (though not perfect) parents.

Children often learn quite effectively to hide their feelings. If only we could teach them to objectify unconventional behavior, and regard those acting out.

 

[BillJx]

Dave Grossman is a psychologist who specializes in the psychology of killing. He's convinced that violent video games are a major factor in teenage mass killings, and some of them are equivalent to training simulations. In fact, according to Grossman, some games are used by terrorist organizations for training and desensitiztion.

http://www.fradical.com/statement_of_lieutenant_colonel_dave_Grossman.htm

Elsewhere on this forum, there's a discussion on political systems. Obviously capitalism works. Obviously, a free political system has to allow people to accumulate wealth and power, and even to expect some degree of selfish abuse. But a civilized society needs to set limits.

 

[Mallignamius]

Do you have any idea how many kids play violent video games? Compare that to the number of mass teenage killings and tell me what you come up with.

 

[mathPimpDaddy]

Oh man, not another violent video game theory, is there anything that does not put blame on videogames?

 

[scorpa]

Do you have any idea how many kids play violent video games? Compare that to the number of mass teenage killings and tell me what you come up with.

Agreed, I don't know anyone who didn't play them at one time or another and none of my friends turned into killers. Heck many of my friends who played those games also grew up on farms where they learned to use guns at an early age, as well as had to help in tasks such as butchering and no one ever turned violent. Seems more like an excuse to me.

 

[ShawnD]

Do you have any idea how many kids play violent video games? Compare that to the number of mass teenage killings and tell me what you come up with.

Done
http://economist.com/images/20050806/CSF334.gif

Crime is at an all time low while video game sales are at an all time high. Using extraordinarily bad reasoning we can conclude that video games actively prevent violence.

Does anybody else think that people should be required to support their crackpot claims with statistics? If I were to claim that ice cream causes murder, then supported it with charts showing a correlation, that would actually have more credibility than some jackass saying video games cause crime then giving absolutely no supporting evidence. Ya know what? Telephones cause HIV. It's true, even though I have absolutely no statistics or scientific evidence to back it up!

 

[Mallignamius]

You're right. Telephones cause HIV.

http://img179.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=71458_telehiv_122_380lo.jpg

 

[russ_watters]

As to schoolyard bullies, I am a bit appalled at both Russ's and Waren's dismissal of this rite of childhood torture. It leads me to a conclusion which I will not state.

As for myself, I was on the receiving end, so am a bit more sensitive to its effects.

Don't judge: Like warren, I was so unpopular in middle school that I was on the edge of becoming popularly unpopular. I participated in a talent show in 7th grade and after my group's performance (2 guys singing Twist and Shout, with me playing it on a keyboard) the entire auditorium started chanting my name. I never did get in a real fight, though, so he has me beat there.

Now, I was picked on, lots of kids are picked we gritted our teeth and endured another day and have never went postal.

Yes, exactly...

My ex wife immigrated to the US when she was 10yrs old. So have some knowledge of the difficulties child emigrants face. Official study of their native language pretty much ends when they arrive in the US, so they are never taught the full depth of their language, they sort of stagnate at the child level of communication being denied a formal education in the language they think in. Then they must pick up and become proficient in a new language, but due to the language barrier as they are learning they often get poor fundamentals of English. This is a form of communication barrier which must be overcome.

Clearly Cho was unable to deal with these issues.

You're saying Cho went postal because of a combination of being picked-on for being different and not having good language skills? C'mon - the US is an immigrant nation and there are millions of people who go through what Cho did on a yearly basis. He couldn't have done too badly: he made it into a decent school.

No, I'm sticking with the undiagnosed mental illness. According to his parents, he was always that way. Society does occasionally create psychopaths, but there is nothing terribly unique about what Cho went through that should have triggered it.

 

[russ_watters]

It seems that Cho did not have the benefit of someone who could stand up for or support him. Rather, he became isolated.

Are we talking about the same person? It was reported that everyone around him knew of is problems and dozens of people tried to reach out to him. His parents tried to get him help. His teachers tried to get him help (and protect the school). His roommates tried to engage him. He rebuffed all attempts to socialize with him.

I grieve for his parents, who have lost a son and who have to live with what he has done, but at the same time, I wonder why they didn't notice something was wrong. They made a statement that they never would have believed that Cho was capable of something so violent.

Read more of their statements and read between the lines a little more. They didn't believe that he was capable of that. They were his parents and no parent would believe that. That doesn't mean that they didn't know something was wrong with him. They did. They said it. A judge said it! They knew and they failed to protect society from him.

We can make a case of self-responsibility, and we expect adults to be more or less self-sufficient and responsible. In reality, some members of society have some difficult or in some cases a lot of difficulty being self-sufficient and responsible. How do we as a society deal with that?

Well, we could start by putting his parents in the same jail cell as Harris and Kleibold's parents. All of them failed in their responsibility. They were criminally neglegent and their failure to protect society from the threat they had full control over resulted in dozens of deaths.

 

[russ_watters]

Dave Grossman is a psychologist who specializes in the psychology of killing. He's convinced that violent video games are a major factor in teenage mass killings, and some of them are equivalent to training simulations. In fact, according to Grossman, some games are used by terrorist organizations for training and desensitiztion.

There is no way to sugar coat this, so I'll just say it: pshrinks who think that are just jackasses (edit: heh - shawn beat me to it). My dad played cops and robbers with cap guns that looked like real guns, pointing them at people and saying "you're dead". I play video games and point images of guns at images of people. There is no inherrent difference in the violence content of such play. It is a rediculous theory.

 

[Astronuc]

Well, we could start by putting his parents in the same jail cell as Harris and Kleibold's parents. All of them failed in their responsibility. They were criminally neglegent and their failure to protect society from the threat they had full control over resulted in dozens of deaths.

Cho was an adult (age 23), and his parents are no longer legally responsible. "Cho purchased his first gun, the .22 caliber Walther P22 on February 2, 2007 . . ."

Other than have trouble socializing, it might not have been evident to Cho's parents - 6 years ago when he was a minor - that he could be a danger to himself or others. Parents are not perpetually legally responsible of their off-spring. At the time of the attacks, he [Cho] was living in Harper Hall, a dormitory just west of West Ambler Johnston Hall.

Harris and Klebold were 18 and 17, respectively, and living in their parent's home, and thus I believe they were still depends and their parents were considered guardians, and therefore legally responsible for their childrens' acts, which were apparently planned at home.

The police and legal authorities are responsible for protecting society.

It was reported that everyone around him knew of is problems and dozens of people tried to reach out to him. His parents tried to get him help. His teachers tried to get him help (and protect the school). His roommates tried to engage him. He rebuffed all attempts to socialize with him.

True, but that was in college, when he apparently had fallen over the edge. I was thinking about high school, or earlier, apparently when (?) he was bullied, which was chroot's point of reference.

 

[Huckleberry]

No, I'm sticking with the undiagnosed mental illness. According to his parents, he was always that way. Society does occasionally create psychopaths, but there is nothing terribly unique about what Cho went through that should have triggered it.

I think it's a bit soon to judge what may have caused Cho's mental illness. All I've heard about his family is a few comments from his uncle and sister. His parents were both hospitalized after the VT incident and have not commented. I'm sure psychologists will dig into his family life and start drawing more conclusions very soon. There may be something there, and there may not. Time will tell if Cho's condition was purely biological or if there was an environmental element to it.

 

[Astronuc]

I think it's a bit soon to judge what may have caused Cho's mental illness. All I've heard about his family is a few comments from his uncle and sister. His parents were both hospitalized after the VT incident and have not commented. I'm sure psychologists will dig into his family life and start drawing more conclusions very soon. There may be something there, and there may not. Time will tell if Cho's condition was purely biological or if there was an environmental element to it.

Since he is dead, it may be too late to evaluate Cho's mental health. I think various parties are already speculating on a variety of disorders, e.g. schizophrenia, Aspberger's, ASD, . . .

And what comes out is that it is apparently very difficult, if not impossible, to predict anyone person's future behavior, with current evaluation protocol.

 

[denverdoc]

Done
http://economist.com/images/20050806/CSF334.gif

Crime is at an all time low while video game sales are at an all time high. Using extraordinarily bad reasoning we can conclude that video games actively prevent violence.

Does anybody else think that people should be required to support their crackpot claims with statistics? If I were to claim that ice cream causes murder, then supported it with charts showing a correlation, that would actually have more credibility than some jackass saying video games cause crime then giving absolutely no supporting evidence. Ya know what? Telephones cause HIV. It's true, even though I have absolutely no statistics or scientific evidence to back it up!

Well lacking any links to your statistics, and first and foremost, let me just say that I enjoy video games, there is no way you or anyone can assert that behavior modelling is without influence. I see this every day, day in, day out till I'm sick of it. Those who resort to violence are trained as such, or seen another way, our violent tendencies are tempered by social conditining. This is a profound prerequisite for peace, and most primates establish a very distinct pecking order and keep it that way. Its way more complicated than this to be sure.

Lets say I saw a 13 year old kid, who was becoming more sullen and irritable, had few friends and spent his entire time playing the most blood and guts games out there, vs one who played piano and watched old musicals. Now if you were in my shoes as a psychiatrist, just which of the two would you worry about most.

Now it is more complicated as if daddy was Rambo, he'd likely have inherited higher levels of aggressivity. So both environment and genes are working in concert. But in absentia of any good modeling and left to his own devices, exposed to violence constantly as a means of solution, come on? This is where the exposue to violence is a liability. Maybe someone smart can create a kill your school bullies game, but that may backfire as well.

 

[ShawnD]

Lets say I saw a 13 year old kid, who was becoming more sullen and irritable, had few friends and spent his entire time playing the most blood and guts games out there, vs one who played piano and watched old musicals. Now if you were in my shoes as a psychiatrist, just which of the two would you worry about most.

I would worry about the one playing piano and watching musicals because it gives the impression that the kid is trying to please somebody else, and if anybody is going to snap, it's him. The kid playing games is doing it to please himself. He has lots of leisure time and he's left to his own devices. He won't need to snap because he already has his own way of venting frustration.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/cv2.htm : Violent crime is at record lows
http://www.theesa.com/facts/top_10_facts.php : "US computer and video game software sales grew six percent in 2006 to $7.4 billion – almost tripling industry software sales since 1996"

That graph I posted before is from an article in The Economist (hence being hosted from economist.com), originally from a http://www.theesa.com/archives/2006EF%20Youth%20Violence.pdf .

Claiming there is a link between games and violence is as credible as claiming the Earth is flat. It may have been believed by somebody at some time, but it doesn't seem to be supported by any evidence.