Norway: terrorist or nutter?

[feral chile]

And here's one for feral, as I'm bored on a friday night:

We don't necessarily look for 'natural' drives to assess someone's state of mind. This would indicate a state of sanity. Rather, we look to their narrative and belief system on how the world is and how the laws of the world function to them. From this, we then take them through the events that they've enacted. If there is incongruence or dissonance between the two then there is a problem.

This is the difference between someone who is a rational killer with intent and someone operating from an emotional process. All emotional processes exhibit the same factors, such as psychological dissonance, whereas rationally motivated processes do not.

You could maybe say that a person will rationally kill for food or political idealism. This will be explained if there is no incongruence or dissonance between their life narrative and their depiction of the events.

A person killing under an emotional process, let's say out of the heat of passion, will undoubtedly show massive incongruence and dissonance between theoir life narrative and their depiction of the events, such as denial etc.

And a psychopath will show no rationality whatsoever for the events as they will have a fantasy rather than life narrative. It will be completely nihilistic and unmotivated.

Edited September 3, 2011 by feral chile

[worm]

I think we need to consider the whole picture. What I believe happens is this. We experience, our brain processes the experience and provides meaning. This is because we're learning animals, so we have to be able to interpret the significance of what we encounter, and respond appropriately. Like any other animal that needs to adapt to the environment.

We still have that primitive fight/flight mechanism that allowed us to respond to dangerous predators etc. but it still comes into play.

So, I'd say in contemporary society, we'll experience something, evaluate it (important/disregard, threat/benign, pleasant/unpleasant) and react to it. We'll also file it into memory, so that next time we encounter it, reaction time is speeded up.

A lot of our stresses now come from society - work, bad parenting, whatever - and often they're stresses where running away, or attacking the source, is inappropriate. So the stress, and the sense of threat, builds inside us. And we'll try to find some way to alleviate the feeling of danger, pressure etc.

That part, so far, is what I call 'natural' drives. The conscious elements in this are the emotional response, and the belief structure that the stimulus gets incorporated into.

Now, this becomes a problem when the belief structure that's created seems warped - and the only way we can assess that is by using our own logic to check if the other person's conclusions seem reasonable. And we can only become aware of a problem if the affected person is acting inappropriately. Even psychotics will have some kind of logic to their belief structure, but their brain has perovided erroneous information regarding the significance of certain events, and have tried to consolidate this into their knowledge base.

So I think the people who argue that the violence is a result of past trauma, are probably right. And so are the people who are saying it's a result of changes in brain chemistry. As are those who say it's a result of erroneous beliefs.

Because it's all part of a bigger picture.

The Blind Men and the Elephant

Edited September 3, 2011 by worm

[feral chile]

That's all well and good, but you're pre-determining each individual's reality in relation to a model of sanity, rather than have each individual inform you of their own model of reality.

It's with each individual's model of reality that we can then start to assess the problems in their behaviour etc. This is quite different to having a model of reality that we think each individual should accord to.

This is why it's a process. People are changing their reality all the time and this is where we encounter actual psychological problems, such as psychological dissonance. This can be a healthy process when someone takes stock to realise something about themselves or can be unhealthy when people confront something too harrowing to accept.

You see, pressures like the modern family and society may actually be a good thing for one person, but something quite harrowing for the next. It depends upon their experiences. And that is reflected in their life narratives and belief systems.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

oh yes, I agree that the content of the stressor varies. I didn't want to imply any content to the process. We all have different stress thresholds and different triggers.

But in seriously disorganised individuals, the triggers might not make logical sense to an observer. It's a question of degree, of course. How often do you look at someone getting wound up by something and feel completely bemused?

[Rufus Gwertigan]

oh yes, I agree that the content of the stressor varies. I didn't want to imply any content to the process. We all have different stress thresholds and different triggers.

But in seriously disorganised individuals, the triggers might not make logical sense to an observer. It's a question of degree, of course. How often do you look at someone getting wound up by something and feel completely bemused?

[feral chile]

As you have been mentioned earlier, in their reality they are been logical and their rant is rational. When you listen to the logic it does make sense. I like the idea Worm has said about taking into account an individuals reality and then looking at issues.

Sorry for not quoting but you mentioned earlier about past experiences and violence etc. I have always been a little retisent to say that "a abuser has been abused" type of thing, although often that is a factor. I have looked at it that there must have been abuse stemming through generations if that philosophy was taken as gospel.

But it has to be admitted that a lot of "abnormal" behaviour is just based on what "society" thinks is wrong at the time and that is a dynamic concept anyway.

[worm]

oh yes, I agree that the content of the stressor varies. I didn't want to imply any content to the process. We all have different stress thresholds and different triggers.

But in seriously disorganised individuals, the triggers might not make logical sense to an observer. It's a question of degree, of course. How often do you look at someone getting wound up by something and feel completely bemused?

[feral chile]

I understand what you're saying and I know it works in counselling and such like. But 'stressors' is another generic term. Imagine applying that to someone who doesn't get stressed much. Surely that would suggest abnormality. You'd most probably be looking at them as abnormal, due to their lack of stress response. So you'd be looking at them as abnormal according to your model of stress response being a norm.

Instead, see and accept that the person doesn't get stressed much, which should come about in their account of themselves and their life. Nothing wrong with that. If this is the case, then you can see that stress and/or stress response is not a very likely factor in the person's actions. So for someone of this kind to have murdered someone else would suggest an abnormal scenario and a thought-process triggered by something significant.

That's what I mean by matching certain events to people's life-narratives and looking for indiscretions and evidence of psychological dissonance. The irrelevance of modern society and its labels in cases such as this, is there is no problem until the person does something unacceptable like murder or until they or someone else realises that they aren't coping.

Essentially, psychological dissonance and perception altering events are part of life. We often act inappropriately or go against our understanding of the world. It's the only way we can adapt and its all part of an essential process. But sometimes we act in ways that actively attack ourselves as part of a destructive process and very much lose our entire sense of self as we go.

Edited September 4, 2011 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

The substance of evolution does not say what, exactly?

That we existed before language.

Only if the evolutionary consideration is of the literal definition of 'humans'.

Evolutionary considerations are not bothered with labels, they are only interested in evolutionary progression.

FFS. You have the scientific methods of a moron. Or a linguist.

The only substance we have of our evolutionary process has language deeply embedded in it. Therefore, the substance of evolution most certainly does not say that we existed before language.

In which case all of evolutionary theory is tosh when it looks at anything not related to literal humans.

I reckon you're just perfect to stand as the Republican candidate in the next US election - their leading runners deny or pretend to deny evolution theory too. They are no less anti-science than you are.

[eFestivals]

Ergo, we think. Your irony is absolutely astounding.

Do we 'think'? We don't know. We know of 'thinking', we do not know we 'think' ('think' in the way that you presume that we think).

Even your literal take on things can't deal with that. We think we think, we do not know we think. We only know of thinking.

We think we think. It's a paradox and not a fact.

It is without doubt that I think.

wrong. You only know of an experience that we call 'thinking'.

I assume everyone else does too

yep, you do - assume. All you have is assumption. You take that 'thinking' assumption and give it your blind faith, no different to any religion. The idea you have gained via 'thinking' of 'thinking' is impossible to test against another to show it as an universal experience that is the same for everyone. We all have a 'thinking' experience, we cannot compare those 'thinking' experiences to know that we experience the same thing.

It is only possible to label 'thinking' as 'thinking' - it is impossible to describe beyond that. The idea we each have of 'thinking' is our own subjective idea that cannot be compared against another person's idea of 'thinking'. The fact that we might use 'thinking' to reach the same conclusions says nothing of what each person's experience is of that 'thinking' to reach that conclusion.

It is an impossibility to know that the experience that you know of as 'thinking' is the same experience that another experiences and knows as thinking. It's the same abstract impossible-to-know idea as exists with people's experiences of colour, where what you see as 'green' might be what I see as 'red'.

The constant to the idea of colour is the label used against a colour, not the experience a person has of the colour itself (which could be different for everyone - it's impossible to ever know without telepathy).

It's the same with 'thinking', where the only constant to the idea is the label, where it's impossible to quantify the idea with any more substance than the label itself (which is a just a meaningless noise).

Other ideas have greater substance, that don't rely only on thinking (and we all know how f**ked up some people's thinking is - that's certainly universal ). Physical scientific ideas rely on experience, not merely on just unquantifiable thinking.

For example, a bucket of water being tipped over someone's head is the same experience for all - and so testable. We can verify the experience of 'wet' as universal, as more than just an idea.

The same is not true of "I think", or even of 'thinking'. The only universality that exists there is a shared unquantifiable experience, something that is untestable as being the same for everyone.

and I verify this scientifically by seeing that they have the same intellectual skills as myself, such as reasoning and rationalising.

PMSL - all that shows is the same result FROM thinking, it says nothing about what 'thinking' itself is or whether it's the same experience for everyone.

What is in question is everything that is thought. I have absolutely no idea if the world around me is real outside of thought because it is never independent of my thinking, ever. This is why we have science Neil, so that we can make sure and verify that the world around us is real independent of our thinking. But it's never actually independent of thought as someone is always thinking it.

PMSL

We are never independent of thinking, but physical ideas from 'thinking' can be verified as the same experience for others.

The experience of 'thinking' itself cannot ever be tested in the same way. Only the conclusions of the experience of thinking can be tested (which ARE universal) - but not the idea of "I think", which cannot be said to be universal without a total reliance on blind faith.

[eFestivals]

The difference is that I do not believe that the narratives exist outside of thought.

then you deny physical science.

Glad we've cleared that up.

[eFestivals]

But if someone suddenly goes out and murders someone, after being habitually calm, then either they've had a neurological problem unrelated to life events, after which an event has then triggered a meltdown, or they've had something traumatic happen - maybe a change of perception that's turned their worldview upside down - and this has triggered a meltdown.

you've missed a third possibility: that "they've had a neurological problem unrelated to life events" but which has no trigger. That they've been "born evil" if you like.

Its not a fashionable view I know, but it's a view with solid evidence behind it to suggest that it might happen.

Following on from what I heard on Radio 4 the week before last (that Worm is such a know-it-all that he's able to dismiss without hearing it or knowing of it ) is this, which throws a few more things into the mix....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-14751999

What that news item doesn't say is whether those people were 'thinking' they were stood straight while not being, or they were 'unable to think themselves straight'.

But which ever way it is, it throws more cold water on what worm has been saying here as indisputable fact. It's certainly disputable, and with more evidence than his only-ideas are able to offer as a rebuke.

It's interesting that society doesn't see all murder as an act of a disturbed mind.

which just gets to show the selective methods being applied by something that likes to think of itself as a 'science'.

That use of a selective methodology gets to prove - even to worm and his literal - that it is not what it claims for itself.

[feral chile]

you've missed a third possibility: that "they've had a neurological problem unrelated to life events" but which has no trigger. That they've been "born evil" if you like.

Its not a fashionable view I know, but it's a view with solid evidence behind it to suggest that it might happen.

[worm]

then you deny physical science.

[worm]

But if someone suddenly goes out and murders someone, after being habitually calm, then either they've had a neurological problem unrelated to life events, after which an event has then triggered a meltdown, or they've had something traumatic happen - maybe a change of perception that's turned their worldview upside down - and this has triggered a meltdown.

I think I'm assuming here that sudden homicide is a result of a meltdown, in a person with no previous history of activism or violence.

Edited September 7, 2011 by worm

[worm]

Evolutionary considerations are not bothered with labels, they are only interested in evolutionary progression.

Edited September 7, 2011 by worm

[worm]

Do we 'think'? We don't know. We know of 'thinking', we do not know we 'think' ('think' in the way that you presume that we think).

[feral chile]

Indeed. But there's no need to psychologically evaluate the person until they act. We're talking here about assessing an act, remember. Whether the person was either rational (terrorist) or whether they were a nutter (emotionally disturbed, psychotic). We're not looking at a theory of everything, just whether he was a terrorist or a nutter.

Because people can murder rationally. In War, for example.

[feral chile]

who says logic is everything? you think you're thinking... it could be anything

it seems reasonably 'logical' to conclude that we existed before language existed

[eFestivals]

No, physical science is a narrative that I believe in. However, the narrative of physical science is simply based upon the measurement of things as they exist within a constraint. As we have no universal constraint, we do not know the depth to which things behave independently.

We are, however, able to know that they exist independent of ourself.

(that's worked on the basis of "I think therefore I am").

The idea of thinking is something which we are only able to know of ourself. We cannot test whether my idea of what thinking is the same as your idea of what thinking is, as we only have the word thinking to refer to for what thinking is to each of us. It's as impossible to compare as it is to describe a smell without using the smell of other things.

(that's still worked on the basis of "I think therefore I am").

Thinking is a blind-faith idea, with no greater substance to it being a right idea as the idea of any religion. There is no validation outside of the self, which does exist for many other things.

You can test the 'output' of thinking, but don't go confusing that output as being the same thing as thinking itself is. What thinking is cannot be tested outside of the self.

[eFestivals]

Evolution and evolutionary progression are labels. They're labels we latch on to what we see before us. Labels that refer to a narrative based upon what they can measure. And they cannot measure beyond a talking human. They cannot stretch any further back than that. Therefore, the narrative of evolution does not and cannot say that we existed prior to an ability to use language. Ergo, you were wrong.

It's you that has a mystical view of science.

Now you may think that we existed before language, but that's your own theory and nothing whatsoever to do with evolutionary science.

I have no mythical view of science. It's you that believes the mythical is science.

As for the rest: semantics semantics.

Does evolutionary theory believe there was an evolutionary predecessor to what is labelled 'homosapian'? Yes it does. That proves the evolutionary progression, and that the names of each stage are of no relevance or matter to the fact of that evolutionary line.

FFS, it's like talking to a five year old. There's no irrelevance you won't chuck in to divert from the fact that the basis of psychology is blind faith and not testable science.

Edited September 9, 2011 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

How can you know or be unsure without thinking? Without coming to a logical conclusion? A logical conclusion is thinking.

There is no way on earth that you can deny thinking. I'm doing it right now. What is uncertain is whether or not my thinking is determined by something else. But there is absolutely no doubt that I think or that there is thought. Absolutely none. It is the primary drive to all knowledge and experience.

You're spouting utter garbage. Science could not exist without structured thought.

PMSL. You're understanding so very very little.

Where have I said or even hinted at denying thinking?

You think, and you know you think. But you only have thinking to think that you think by.

Can you test that you think how you think you think? No you can't, all you can do is test that you think.

Got it? It can be got. It is factually accurate.

But if you think it's garbage, that just gets to show how crap language is, and that language cannot logically be everything that you claim for it.

[eFestivals]

Science could not exist without structured thought.

And it has it, a structure that is absent from psychology.

There is testing outside of the self with science, which is an impossibility for the whole basis of psychology. Psychology relies on blind faith and nothing else.

[feral chile]

And it has it, a structure that is absent from psychology.

There is testing outside of the self with science, which is an impossibility for the whole basis of psychology. Psychology relies on blind faith and nothing else.

[eFestivals]

That's not quite true. Psychology tests hypotheses using groups of subjects, using a control group and then changing the variable of interest for the test group. Then they use statistical methods of probability to verify if there was a significant difference. So it uses the same scientific method as hard sciences.

As I've said all along, there's some parts that aren't worthless.

If you care to carefully study the words I used, I'm talking about the very basis of psychology, the idea of thinking itself - not that 'we do think', not the results of our thinking, but the ideas we have of what thinking itself is.

We have nothing but blind faith for that. There is nothing of it we can test. We can't even test if your own personal idea of thinking is the same idea I have for what thinking is. We can only each think of what thinking might be.

Edited September 9, 2011 by eFestivals