Norway: terrorist or nutter?

[feral chile]

No I haven't.

I've said repeatedly that there is no such thing as a sociopath other in idea, and that there is only such thing as sociopathic. And I've said repeatedly that sociopathic is the condition of being completely devoid of emotion in relation to social connections. That's because it's a well established thought-process that has been evidenced over and over again. I have even gave you an example. You have completely failed to understand, though your effort to make it this way has been astounding.

The idea that you have of the evolution of psychology has pretty much ended this charade of a conversation for me. I can't believe that I'm having to say this to a grown man, but the idea of 'nutty' has never been part of psychology. Psychology seeks to identify thought-processes and what motivates them, not assert what we think should be deemed normal and abnormal social behaviour. I can no longer be bothered to waste my time talking at this level. It's tiring having to correct your wild assertions all the time in surrogacy of you having an actual point to contend with.

[feral chile]

Don't the specifics and/or definitions kind of get in the way. Everyone is different... we can call him whatever we like, and in a few years come to a totally different conclusion because of a newer understanding (which will be superceded by another one later) of emotional behaviour. The courts will ask him why he did it, and he could lie through the whole process.

I bet a lot of people - while horrified by what he did - will totally sympathise with his supposed reasoning.

[eFestivals]

I've said repeatedly that there is no such thing as a sociopath other in idea

you hadn't, but now you're admitting that it's a worthless idea as I'd said, that's good enough for me.

See, you can extract your head from your arse now and then, and see something real and not some invented worthless fantasy. It's progress I guess.

The idea that you have of the evolution of psychology has pretty much ended this charade of a conversation for me. I can't believe that I'm having to say this to a grown man, but the idea of 'nutty' has never been part of psychology. Psychology seeks to identify thought-processes and what motivates them, not assert what we think should be deemed normal and abnormal social behaviour. I can no longer be bothered to waste my time talking at this level. It's tiring having to correct your wild assertions all the time in surrogacy of you having an actual point to contend with.

Why does psychology "seeks to identify thought-processes and what motivates them"? It wouldn't be an attempt to make what is not understandable into something that might be understood, would it?

The 'nutty' is something which is beyond a person's comprehension. Without people's motivations being beyond comprehension there would have been no need to invent a 'science' which attempted to rationalise and understand those motivations.

And so very solidly at the base of all psychology is the 'nutty', whether you're intelligent enough to recognise that or not.

You wrongly believe that psychology can give you the answers, when it can't, tho it might manage the odd hint in the right direction. It has some ideas, but ideas that are very easy to prove as baseless (at least in their application), and so psychology is proven as not having the answers. And so what was 'nutty' before the existence of psychology remains beyond your comprehension even with the existence of psychology.

Nutty is fine for use in this thread. You adhere to the idea no less than me.

[jump]

He wasn't a nutter ot a terrorists, he was a plagiarist as his manifesto is mostly just copy & pasted from the unabomber.

[feral chile]

you hadn't, but now you're admitting that it's a worthless idea as I'd said, that's good enough for me.

See, you can extract your head from your arse now and then, and see something real and not some invented worthless fantasy. It's progress I guess.

Why does psychology "seeks to identify thought-processes and what motivates them"? It wouldn't be an attempt to make what is not understandable into something that might be understood, would it?

The 'nutty' is something which is beyond a person's comprehension. Without people's motivations being beyond comprehension there would have been no need to invent a 'science' which attempted to rationalise and understand those motivations.

And so very solidly at the base of all psychology is the 'nutty', whether you're intelligent enough to recognise that or not.

You wrongly believe that psychology can give you the answers, when it can't, tho it might manage the odd hint in the right direction. It has some ideas, but ideas that are very easy to prove as baseless (at least in their application), and so psychology is proven as not having the answers. And so what was 'nutty' before the existence of psychology remains beyond your comprehension even with the existence of psychology.

Nutty is fine for use in this thread. You adhere to the idea no less than me.

[eFestivals]

All knowledge is an attempt to understand what is not understandable. Psychology is the study of human mind and behaviour. So unless we're all nutty, then your argument's invalid. (Most of it deals with statistics, so it looks at how people as a whole behave, which used to annoy the hell out of me when I was studying it - it's not really looking at individuals but at humans as a group).

Yep, all knowledge is an attempt to understand what's not understandable.

Psychology at its simplest does not need a 'science' called psychology. For example, we all understand very easily that a person eats because they're hungry - so no 'science' required.

Psychology came about because of a want to understand 'deeper' things - such as, for example, the doings of this guy in Norway. Without psychology to try and bring some understanding to his actions, his actions are for most people nothing other than 'nutty' because they can't be understood.

So, yes, we ARE all 'nutty' without a psychological take on things to bring about some sort of understanding of why we do certain things.

Psychology's very starting point is the 'nutty' actions that it wants to try and understand. Without there being those 'nutty' actions, there is no psychology.

[feral chile]

Yep, all knowledge is an attempt to understand what's not understandable.

Psychology at its simplest does not need a 'science' called psychology. For example, we all understand very easily that a person eats because they're hungry - so no 'science' required.

Psychology came about because of a want to understand 'deeper' things - such as, for example, the doings of this guy in Norway. Without psychology to try and bring some understanding to his actions, his actions are for most people nothing other than 'nutty' because they can't be understood.

So, yes, we ARE all 'nutty' without a psychological take on things to bring about some sort of understanding of why we do certain things.

Psychology's very starting point is the 'nutty' actions that it wants to try and understand. Without there being those 'nutty' actions, there is no psychology.

Edited August 10, 2011 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

That's true to an extent, but there's a lot more to psychology than that.

What I've said is indisputably true: without the 'nutty' that cannot be understood, there's no need to invent a 'science' which tries to understand.

I've not said anywhere where any limit to psychology's reach is, so I've no idea where the second part of that sentence comes from, or what followed it.

I've stated explicitly that not everything about it is worthless, but I'm also able to recognise that it's got far less of any provable truth in its ideas than it likes to believe of itself. Its in its very infancy (if you like, using the development of 'standard' science, it's pre-Newton), yet many psychologists are so sucked up into it that they credit it all as being no less of a solid idea than (say) what is known of DNA.

Yes, some of what you laid out there is pretty solid - but ultimately it's not delving much deeper into the human mind than psychology at it's simplest, such as the recognition that a person eats because they're hungry, which is about at the level of weights and measures in more normal scientific disciplines.

We're light years away from being able to use psychology to gain an absolute understanding of what (properly) motivated this Norwegian guy.

I do take your point though - you don't need a psychology degree to relate to people.

That's been a very minor part of my point.

The major part is that you can't always successfully use psychology to relate to people at a complex level, and that failure shows that many of its concepts are waaaay off the mark (else they'd always give the right result). It simply has too many undefined-against-reality ideas within it as it stands.

Edited August 11, 2011 by eFestivals

[feral chile]

What I've said is indisputably true: without the 'nutty' that cannot be understood, there's no need to invent a 'science' which tries to understand.

I've not said anywhere where any limit to psychology's reach is, so I've no idea where the second part of that sentence comes from, or what followed it.

I've stated explicitly that not everything about it is worthless, but I'm also able to recognise that it's got far less of any provable truth in its ideas than it likes to believe of itself. Its in its very infancy (if you like, using the development of 'standard' science, it's pre-Newton), yet many psychologists are so sucked up into it that they credit it all as being no less of a solid idea than (say) what is known of DNA.

Yes, some of what you laid out there is pretty solid - but ultimately it's not delving much deeper into the human mind than psychology at it's simplest, such as the recognition that a person eats because they're hungry, which is about at the level of weights and measures in more normal scientific disciplines.

We're light years away from being able to use psychology to gain an absolute understanding of what (properly) motivated this Norwegian guy.

That's been a very minor part of my point.

The major part is that you can't always successfully use psychology to relate to people at a complex level, and that failure shows that many of its concepts are waaaay off the mark (else they'd always give the right result). It simply has too many undefined-against-reality ideas within it as it stands.

Edited August 11, 2011 by feral chile

[feral chile]

It might be worthwhile giving a profile of the type of person the psychopath label would probably be applied to.

It's the sort of person who would inflict extraordinary punishment if someone crossed him in any way. For instance, if they had an argument with him in work, if they took the easy work that in his head he felt entitled to do, if they got promoted over him, or received praise for their work, or rejected his sexual advances.

He'd decide they needed to be punished/taught a lesson/brought down a peg or two.

He'd probably get other people involved in it, to cover his tracks. So he'd approach the practical jokers in the office, and persuade them to play a few anonymous pranks. If possible, those pranks would touch a raw nerve in the target, something painful in their past or something they were sensitive about.

And he'd pass a few rumours to the office gossips, again if possible hitting on vulnerabilities. So if the target was getting married, for instance, he'd start a rumour saying he was having an affair. If he had no specific information about the target, there's always the old standby's to fall back on, guaranteed to create moral outrage and mistrust. Thief, liar, grass, paedophile, 'nutter' etc.

He'd be utterly ruthless, making sure that the target was socially isolated, stressed, and unable to prove the true source of their downfall. he would never stop until the target was driven out of the office, forced to leave, suffered a breakdown, committed suicide etc.

And if the target retaliated, he'd appeal to the others he'd involved, who now have no choice but to support him in pretending the target's making it all up. He can then play the victim and go straight to management and claim harrassment.

His whole mindset when speaking to people would be to gather 'ammunition' for possible use later. So he'd be adept at manipulation, and would know which triggers to press both on the unwitting accomplices, and the target.

So he understands emotion and pain in a rational way, but only as a tool and a weapon. And he understands what makes people tick. But people are just a means to an end for him. And the end is his self-aggrandizement, and the total destruction of another human being.

So basically, the users and haters of the world, if you can describe them as experiencing hatred. The negative people, the trouble makers, etc.

Edited August 13, 2011 by feral chile

[diddly-dee]

I saw some coverage on the news of the memorial service in Oslo yesterday - including the Norwegian king looking, genuinely, grief stricken as he fought back tears. Powerful stuff. I can't imagine queen bess 2 or any of her horse-faced offspring shedding any years should 77 of her subjects be murdered.

[feral chile]

nuttin'....

[eFestivals]

was listening to Breivik's lawyer this morning, saying he (Breivik) sees himself as a warrior. He knows that he's seen as a demon, but seems perfectly calm in his knowledge that he's doing the right thing for Europe....

interview

While most of us wouldn't agree with the conclusions he's made, it sounds very much to me as tho Breivik has made a rational deduction from an emotional fear he has of the consequences of immigration.

[feral chile]

While most of us wouldn't agree with the conclusions he's made, it sounds very much to me as tho Breivik has made a rational deduction from an emotional fear he has of the consequences of immigration.

[eFestivals]

Can you make a rational deduction from an emotion? You can justify the action after the fact.

true. I could have used better words for that.

but yes, you can make a rational deduction from an emotion. It's what we all do most of the time.

that rationality can be overwhelmed by a strong emotion of course, but with this nutter i see it as him having deduced that he was as good as powerless to change his country's direction aside from committing an extreme act.

it'll be interesting what a psychiatric assessment makes of him.

that's the least interesting aspect of all. There's a whole heap of reasons why it'll mean naff all, not least because it's not possible to match his own thought processes. The conclusions will be no less an emotional response than his murders were despite working from a 'science'.

[worm]

Yep, all knowledge is an attempt to understand what's not understandable.

Psychology at its simplest does not need a 'science' called psychology. For example, we all understand very easily that a person eats because they're hungry - so no 'science' required.

Psychology came about because of a want to understand 'deeper' things - such as, for example, the doings of this guy in Norway. Without psychology to try and bring some understanding to his actions, his actions are for most people nothing other than 'nutty' because they can't be understood.

So, yes, we ARE all 'nutty' without a psychological take on things to bring about some sort of understanding of why we do certain things.

Psychology's very starting point is the 'nutty' actions that it wants to try and understand. Without there being those 'nutty' actions, there is no psychology.

[worm]

It might be worthwhile giving a profile of the type of person the psychopath label would probably be applied to.

[eFestivals]

Rubbish. Psychology came about as a way of understanding (and labelling) the various processes of the psyche, as I have already stated.

which means that....?

Previously those things were not understood, they were 'nutty' because they were beyond understanding.

It has nothing to do with abnormality, unless you're talking specifically about abnormal thought-processes.

Care to tell me what is an "abnormal thought process"?

And please bear in mind when giving your answer that you're the guy who has categorically stated that there is no such thing as a human physical abnormality, it's merely a difference in a human.

From your very words here, you prove that psychology has a belief that it knows what is a 'normal' human reaction and what is an abnormal one. Yet how does it know what is 'normal'?

Without it believing that it knows it all (the reality proves different thru its failures!) it would be unable to say what is normal and what is not. And yet those failures gets to show that it doesn't much know what it's talking about - it might guess right but it might not. Note the word "guess"; call it 'deduction' if you like, but whichever it is it's a wrong guess or deduction.

Pathos and eros are the two defining factors here, much the same as the factors of positive and negative operate in the study of physics. Pathos is the logic of the destructive mental force, while eros is the logic of the creative mental force. 'Nutty' is the absolute antithesis of pathos and eros, as it implies no psychological motivation whatsoever. It suggests no psychology, no reason. It suggests indefinable madness.

it suggests - gets it right in fact - the state that exists before a psychological take on things is made.

After all, if something wasn't 'madness' (beyond comprehension, not understood) then there'd be no need to try and understand it, would there?

So I'll ask you again, what is this idea of normality from which you can define nutty?

It's you and psychology with the idea of 'normal' - your words above prove it so. "abnormal thought-processes".

No idea of normal is needed for an idea of 'nutty'. All that is required is that something isn't understood, that the reasoning that led someone to do something is beyond the comprehension of the person who considers that act as 'nutty'.

[eFestivals]

The labelling of the person is not important and this pseudo-debate about psychology is a distraction.

Absolutely right. So why bring your psycho-babble into things in the first place, especially when it's proven as being so wrong so much of the time?

If psychology had much of substance to offer for cases like this, then it could have reached the conclusion that Breivik was a dangerous nutter before he went on his killing spree. While he personally might not have been subject to any analysis before the event to do that, there's a huge number of examples where people like him have been analysed and psychology has got it entirely wrong.

The term 'psychopathic' refers to the thought-process that the guy may have had at the time. It's not about assessing whether he was a psychopath, it's about assessing whether or not the thought-process he was operating from was driven by a pathological (i.e. psychopathic - sociopathic) drive.

when you're able to show me any action that doesn't have emotion in the mix you might have a point here.

Psychology does not look to type the person so that society can regard the behaviours of certain people as being related to a type. It refers to a real thought-process that has occured, and from which one can try to begin to understand both the sub-conscious and conscious motivations that led to the person's actions.

corrected for you.

It's failures get to show it has little to offer in complex cases.

What does begin to explain it is the type of thought-processes that the person underwent. A nutty thought-process means nothing. There is absolutely no psychological validity to this term at all.

then psychology is not a man-made concept, it is a trait handed down by god/nature/evolution.

Whereas a psychopathic thought-process gives us a guess as to the motivations and causes that occured in the person's life that led to the outcome. It is a starting point; a symptom, not a cause.

corrected for you.

Psychopathic drives are as real and as measurable as negatively charged electrical currents.

PMSL. So please give me the 'normal' and prove yourself right.

[feral chile]

The labelling of the person is not important and this pseudo-debate about psychology is a distraction. The term 'psychopathic' refers to the thought-process that the guy may have had at the time. It's not about assessing whether he was a psychopath, it's about assessing whether or not the thought-process he was operating from was driven by a pathological (i.e. psychopathic - sociopathic) drive.

Psychology does not look to type the person so that society can regard the behaviours of certain people as being related to a type. It refers to a real thought-process that has occured, and from which one can begin to understand both the sub-conscious and conscious motivations that led to the person's actions.

A psychopath is a stereotype. A nutter is a stereotype. A terrorist is a stereotype. None of which explain the cause of what happened. What does begin to explain it is the type of thought-processes that the person underwent. A nutty thought-process means nothing. There is absolutely no psychological validity to this term at all. Whereas a psychopathic thought-process gives us an indication as to the motivations and causes that occured in the person's life that led to the outcome. It is a starting point; a symptom, not a cause.

Psychopathic drives are as real and as measurable as negatively charged electrical currents. A psychopath is just a stereotype.

[feral chile]

No idea of normal is needed for an idea of 'nutty'. All that is required is that something isn't understood, that the reasoning that led someone to do something is beyond the comprehension of the person who considers that act as 'nutty'.

Edited August 24, 2011 by feral chile

[feral chile]

when you're able to show me any action that doesn't have emotion in the mix you might have a point here.

Edited August 24, 2011 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

Psychology is obsessed with being objective, so it looks at statistical norms. I do think, obviously, that humans know when someone's 'not quite right' and then build a theory around that, rather than the other way round. And all psychologists are human, and therefore biased.

But a statistical norm says nothing about what is normal. It only says what most people might do.

What a person might do is dependent on so many different variables - ones that an observer/enquirer can never know to the full extent - that a psychological take on it can only ever be a stab in the dark. That's not science.

In the second part of what you say I think you've nailed it. Again, that's not science.

If every psychologist had the grounding in reality that you've applied here I'd find little within psychology to laugh at. It's when the likes of worm presents it as being more than it actually is that I double up.

[feral chile]

But a statistical norm says nothing about what is normal. It only says what most people might do.

What a person might do is dependent on so many different variables - ones that an observer/enquirer can never know to the full extent - that a psychological take on it can only ever be a stab in the dark. That's not science.

In the second part of what you say I think you've nailed it. Again, that's not science.

If every psychologist had the grounding in reality that you've applied here I'd find little within psychology to laugh at. It's when the likes of worm presents it as being more than it actually is that I double up.

[eFestivals]

There's the rub. How can you ever know this, unless you can get inside their head quite literally and (not) feel what they're (not) feeling?

It's an interesting concept, and I'm sure we've all encountered some really cold people at some stage, but who knows what's going on inside?

I don't really understand what they mean by no emotion, either, because these people are meant to be amoral, and tend to be involved in bringing down other people. But surely that has to involve spite/hatred?

Exactly. There's always an emotional reaction to something which has led to any 'coldness' - blowing the whole concept of a sociopath out of the water. It can't be any different to that unless a person subscribes to the idea that some are 'born evil'.

And the 'coldness' can often be another emotionally-driven thing, where a person is following thru on something they don't particularly like doing but which they see as the lesser evil to the other options. In rationalising their emotions into action they need to take that 'cold' view to lessen the potential emotional upset from what they're doing. From the little I've heard of what Breivik is supposedly thinking since his murder spree, that appears to be what he's doing.

I have to pay taxes. If I refused to pay taxes I could either suffer the legal consequences of that refusal and take the gaol term, or I could kill all the tax inspectors and legal enforcers. Which of them I might choose to do is completely dependent on how deep my emotional refusal to pay taxes goes. Neither choice is emotion-free, but I'd need to suppress my emotional dislike of causing death to others (essentially, allow that emotion to be over-ridden by a stronger one that refuses to pay taxes) to seriously consider taking the second option. I can couch those emotions in rational ideas - nothing unusual there, we all self-justify everything we do - but it's always emotion at the base of things.