Mass shooters aren't crazies

[barbos]

https://www.geneticliteracyproject....violent-criminals-and-what-should-society-do/

The most recent appearance of MAOA-L is a paper Molecular Psychiatry published a week ago from a host of researchers based mostly in Finland. It showed that Finnish criminals convicted of several violent crimes frequently possessed either MAOA-L or a mutant version of another gene, CDH13, while the nonviolent controls did not. Find details in John Gever’s piece at MedPage Today.

CDH13 is involved in signalling between cells. Previous research has linked it with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism, schizophrenia, substance abuse or bipolar disorder. So far as I know, this is the first time it has been associated with violent criminality.

OK, but you say that it's in 30% of the population and only a fractional percentage of those have committed violent crimes. While it may have a relation, it's clearly not a causative one.

Have not committed yet. there are other contributing factors too and maybe they were not pissed off enough.
I knew a guy I swear had something in his genome, because he would turn scary when drunk. And this Finnish study found that alcohol is unusually bad for these people.

Well, we all know that gut derived science is the best.

Science starts from observation.

 

[barbos]

We're talking about two different levels of violence. At one level road rage ends with a shooting. At another level road rage ends up with a guy targeting a busloads or carloads of people and gunning them down, then blowing himself up.

As all mental states are physical brain states it would certainly be nice to be able to go down the chain of mental processes that leads to a person gunning down fifty people. It would be just as illuminating to go down the chain of mental events that leads to a person drinking to the point of impairment, then getting behind the wheel of a car and committing "unintentional" vehicular homicide. But our science isn't there yet, if it will ever be.

What does it take to do these things? Justification? Is a bomber pilot justified in killing tens of thousands of enemy non-combatants? What about twelve? What about one? Who is insane when those things are done intentionally? Seems someone should be by some of the arguments put forth here.

Yes, two kind of violence, but science suggests that both are pretty normal for humans.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Recognizing this "fact" is not rational or helpful until we understand WHY this gene is linked to violent behavior.

We already do more less.

We don't, though. The causative link between genes and predispositions is not and has never been thoroughly established. Geneticists and sociologists have narrowed that "debate" down to "Little bit of nature, little bit of nurture."

Trying to associate a gene with a SPECIFIC behavior, on the other hand, is not something we can currently do, and it's doubtful such a thing is even possible. That is more of a pseudoscientific idea, like a form of genetic phrenology where one assumes that one or two "bad genes" can be blamed for some such specific bad behavior.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

We're talking about two different levels of violence. At one level road rage ends with a shooting. At another level road rage ends up with a guy targeting a busloads or carloads of people and gunning them down, then blowing himself up.

As all mental states are physical brain states it would certainly be nice to be able to go down the chain of mental processes that leads to a person gunning down fifty people. It would be just as illuminating to go down the chain of mental events that leads to a person drinking to the point of impairment, then getting behind the wheel of a car and committing "unintentional" vehicular homicide. But our science isn't there yet, if it will ever be.

What does it take to do these things? Justification? Is a bomber pilot justified in killing tens of thousands of enemy non-combatants? What about twelve? What about one? Who is insane when those things are done intentionally? Seems someone should be by some of the arguments put forth here.

Yes, two kind of violence, but science suggests that both are pretty normal for humans.

Science does no such thing.

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.geneticliteracyproject....violent-criminals-and-what-should-society-do/

The most recent appearance of MAOA-L is a paper Molecular Psychiatry published a week ago from a host of researchers based mostly in Finland. It showed that Finnish criminals convicted of several violent crimes frequently possessed either MAOA-L or a mutant version of another gene, CDH13, while the nonviolent controls did not. Find details in John Gever’s piece at MedPage Today.

CDH13 is involved in signalling between cells. Previous research has linked it with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism, schizophrenia, substance abuse or bipolar disorder. So far as I know, this is the first time it has been associated with violent criminality.

OK, but you say that it's in 30% of the population and only a fractional percentage of those have committed violent crimes. While it may have a relation, it's clearly not a causative one.

Have not committed yet. there are other contributing factors too and maybe they were not pissed off enough.
I knew a guy I swear had something in his genome, because he would turn scary when drunk. And this Finnish study found that alcohol is unusually bad for these people.

Well, we all know that gut derived science is the best.

Science starts from observation.

Man, talk about understatement. Darwin observed birds on an island had beaks that were different... therefore evolution. Fuck the book and study... print a leaflet! Your observation wasn't "science".

 

[RavenSky]

A friend of mine was just assaulted in a McDonalds of all places. That doesn't mean the guy who assaulted him was crazy. What if instead of shooting him he'd just punched him out? Did the use of a firearm automatically make him insane? There are an infinite number of scenarios that could have led to a guy doing this, none of which would indicate the guy was insane. Wrong certainly, but not insane.

Yes, but we're not talking about any of those scenarios. We're talking about the scenario where somebody rear ends you and you pull out a gun and shoot him for it. Walk me through the rationale for that which isn't insane.

I think that you are using "insane" in a conversational manner rather than a medical/clinical one.

Let's assume that I agree with you that it is "insane" for someone to kill another human being in a road rage situation (and I do agree, btw)

How does that help with regard to gun violence?

 

[barbos]

Yes, two kind of violence, but science suggests that both are pretty normal for humans.

Science does no such thing.

Yes, it does.

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.geneticliteracyproject....violent-criminals-and-what-should-society-do/

The most recent appearance of MAOA-L is a paper Molecular Psychiatry published a week ago from a host of researchers based mostly in Finland. It showed that Finnish criminals convicted of several violent crimes frequently possessed either MAOA-L or a mutant version of another gene, CDH13, while the nonviolent controls did not. Find details in John Gever’s piece at MedPage Today.

CDH13 is involved in signalling between cells. Previous research has linked it with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism, schizophrenia, substance abuse or bipolar disorder. So far as I know, this is the first time it has been associated with violent criminality.

OK, but you say that it's in 30% of the population and only a fractional percentage of those have committed violent crimes. While it may have a relation, it's clearly not a causative one.

Have not committed yet. there are other contributing factors too and maybe they were not pissed off enough.
I knew a guy I swear had something in his genome, because he would turn scary when drunk. And this Finnish study found that alcohol is unusually bad for these people.

Well, we all know that gut derived science is the best.

Science starts from observation.

Man, talk about understatement. Darwin observed birds on an island had beaks that were different... therefore evolution. Fuck the book and study... print a leaflet! Your observation wasn't "science".

Science still starts with observation.

 

[barbos]

We already do more less.

We don't, though. The causative link between genes and predispositions is not and has never been thoroughly established. Geneticists and sociologists have narrowed that "debate" down to "Little bit of nature, little bit of nurture."

Trying to associate a gene with a SPECIFIC behavior, on the other hand, is not something we can currently do, and it's doubtful such a thing is even possible. That is more of a pseudoscientific idea, like a form of genetic phrenology where one assumes that one or two "bad genes" can be blamed for some such specific bad behavior.

Who said anything about "SPECIFIC" behavior?
Lysenkovshhina is pseudoscience, genetics is not.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Science does no such thing.

Yes, it does.

Any suggestion that science indicates much regarding genes and violence is not true as there is little settled science in that sphere. Citing a study is meaningless. Settled science requires a ton of studies, not one or two.

Man, talk about understatement. Darwin observed birds on an island had beaks that were different... therefore evolution. Fuck the book and study... print a leaflet! Your observation wasn't "science".

Science still starts with observation.

You aren't helping yourself here. You used an anecdotal example of a mere observation to try and bolster your opinion. That isn't science. Being able to predict what observations will be is science.

 

[barbos]

Yes, it does.

Any suggestion that science indicates much regarding genes and violence is not true as there is little settled science in that sphere. Citing a study is meaningless. Settled science requires a ton of studies, not one or two.

You are moving goal posts here. Statistical link was established and biochemical mechanism is more less understood as well.

Man, talk about understatement. Darwin observed birds on an island had beaks that were different... therefore evolution. Fuck the book and study... print a leaflet! Your observation wasn't "science".

Science still starts with observation.

You aren't helping yourself here. You used an anecdotal example of a mere observation to try and bolster your opinion. That isn't science. Being able to predict what observations will be is science.

Science still starts with observation. I observed that guy and wondered "why is that?" and then much later Finnish study explained that.
Yes It was an anecdote, and science often starts with one.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Any suggestion that science indicates much regarding genes and violence is not true as there is little settled science in that sphere. Citing a study is meaningless. Settled science requires a ton of studies, not one or two.

You are moving goal posts here. Statistical link was established and biochemical mechanism is more less understood as well.

No it isn't.

Man, talk about understatement. Darwin observed birds on an island had beaks that were different... therefore evolution. Fuck the book and study... print a leaflet! Your observation wasn't "science".

Science still starts with observation.

You aren't helping yourself here. You used an anecdotal example of a mere observation to try and bolster your opinion. That isn't science. Being able to predict what observations will be is science.

Science still starts with observation. I observed that guy and wondered "why is that?" and then much later Finnish study explained that.
Yes It was an anecdote, and science often starts with one.

No it doesn't.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

We don't, though. The causative link between genes and predispositions is not and has never been thoroughly established. Geneticists and sociologists have narrowed that "debate" down to "Little bit of nature, little bit of nurture."

Trying to associate a gene with a SPECIFIC behavior, on the other hand, is not something we can currently do, and it's doubtful such a thing is even possible. That is more of a pseudoscientific idea, like a form of genetic phrenology where one assumes that one or two "bad genes" can be blamed for some such specific bad behavior.

Who said anything about "SPECIFIC" behavior?

YOU did, when you tried to imply a specific gene mutation is linked to violent crime and mass shootings. The Finnish study implies a CORRELATION but does not identify a causal mechanism or make any guesses as to what other factors may be involved or how they interact together. In fact, genetic studies of ANY kind never actually do this because geneticists are not in a position to evaluate genetic triggers in context with behavioral and psychological ones.

Lysenkovshhina is pseudoscience, genetics is not.

And yet genetic phrenology is still a pseudoscience even if it does (wrongly) invoke a real science as its basis.

Science still starts with observation.

But it does not and cannot END with observation.

 

[barbos]

Science certainly does not start with putting label on a problem.

 

[barbos]

Who said anything about "SPECIFIC" behavior?

YOU did, when you tried to imply a specific gene mutation is linked to violent crime and mass shootings. The Finnish study implies a CORRELATION but does not identify a causal mechanism or make any guesses as to what other factors may be involved or how they interact together. In fact, genetic studies of ANY kind never actually do this because geneticists are not in a position to evaluate genetic triggers in context with behavioral and psychological ones.

Lysenkovshhina is pseudoscience, genetics is not.

And yet genetic phrenology is still a pseudoscience even if it does (wrongly) invoke a real science as its basis.

Science still starts with observation.

But it does not and cannot END with observation.

I really wonder what's your agenda here. Seems to me you have some issues SPECIFICALLY with my persona.
I merely agreed with OP and referred to some studies which indirectly support it. Calling them pseudoscience does not hurt me.

 

[ronburgundy]

Science does no such thing.

Yes, it does.

No, science shows that exact opposite. It shows that reacting to a minor confrontation with a mass killing is extremely abnormal, with statistically rare being the scientific definition of abnormal. Nothing you presented in any way implies normalcy of such behavior.
All such actions are committed by people who have skin. By your "reasoning", since having skin is "normal", such actions are normal.

The fact the the gene in question is slightly more common (though still usually absent) from those who engage in such behaviors) does not make such violence "normal".
The only thing that makes it "normal" is the actual frequency of the behavior, which is rare and thus abnormal.
Even if the gene were found in 30% of people, the fact (a fact shown by all the science you cited) shows that the gene's tie to the behavior is very weak and that few people with the gene ever engage in such behavior. This shows the causal force of the gene is highly weak and contingent, making the fact that the gene is not uncommon of no relevance to the "normalcy" of the behavior.

Finally, you stats are bullshit. Only the 2R variant has an association (and a weak one) with violent crime. That variant is empirically rare in the overall human population, somewhere around 2%.

 

[barbos]

Yes, it does.

No, science shows that exact opposite. It shows that reacting to a minor confrontation with a mass killing is extremely abnormal,

That's not what I said. I said violence is pretty normal for humans and nowhere I used words "minor confrontation"

with statistically rare being the scientific definition of abnormal. Nothing you presented in any way implies normalcy of such behavior.
All such actions are committed by people who have skin. By your "reasoning", since having skin is "normal", such actions are normal.

The fact the the gene in question is slightly more common (though still usually absent) from those who engage in such behaviors) does not make such violence "normal".
The only thing that makes it "normal" is the actual frequency of the behavior, which is rare and thus abnormal.
Even if the gene were found in 30% of people, the fact (a fact shown by all the science you cited) shows that the gene's tie to the behavior is very weak and that few people with the gene ever engage in such behavior. This shows the causal force of the gene is highly weak and contingent, making the fact that the gene is not uncommon of no relevance to the "normalcy" of the behavior.

Finally, you stats are bullshit. Only the 2R variant has an association (and a weak one) with violent crime. That variant is empirically rare in the overall human population, somewhere around 2%.

Again, I merely parroted finnish study, and they do say 30% or something in that area.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

YOU did, when you tried to imply a specific gene mutation is linked to violent crime and mass shootings. The Finnish study implies a CORRELATION but does not identify a causal mechanism or make any guesses as to what other factors may be involved or how they interact together. In fact, genetic studies of ANY kind never actually do this because geneticists are not in a position to evaluate genetic triggers in context with behavioral and psychological ones.

Lysenkovshhina is pseudoscience, genetics is not.

And yet genetic phrenology is still a pseudoscience even if it does (wrongly) invoke a real science as its basis.

Science still starts with observation.

But it does not and cannot END with observation.

I really wonder what's your agenda here. Seems to me you have some issues SPECIFICALLY with my persona.

I usually lurk these threads, but I have issue with you taking a very specific and obviously incorrect position on this topic.

I merely agreed with OP and referred to some studies which indirectly support it.

Really? Because the OP doesn't suggest a genetic contributor to mass shootings AT ALL. It suggests that events like Sandy Hook and the Pulse Massacre are fueled by a sense of glorification of violence, grandiosity and ultra-violent theatrics. Basically, mass-shooters are trying to get their fifteen minutes of infamy, with or without a pet cause or a manifesto to help drive the narrative.

Calling them pseudoscience does not hurt me.

Your idea that a mutant gene or genes is either a contributor to this phenomenon or that the nature of that contribution is or can be understood by current scientific paradigms is, indeed, pseudoscience. It's nothing personal, you're just wrong.

 

[barbos]

YOU did, when you tried to imply a specific gene mutation is linked to violent crime and mass shootings. The Finnish study implies a CORRELATION but does not identify a causal mechanism or make any guesses as to what other factors may be involved or how they interact together. In fact, genetic studies of ANY kind never actually do this because geneticists are not in a position to evaluate genetic triggers in context with behavioral and psychological ones.

Lysenkovshhina is pseudoscience, genetics is not.

And yet genetic phrenology is still a pseudoscience even if it does (wrongly) invoke a real science as its basis.

Science still starts with observation.

But it does not and cannot END with observation.

I really wonder what's your agenda here. Seems to me you have some issues SPECIFICALLY with my persona.

I usually lurk these threads, but I have issue with you taking a very specific and obviously incorrect position on this topic.

It is you who is obviously incorrect,

I merely agreed with OP and referred to some studies which indirectly support it.

Really? Because the OP doesn't suggest a genetic contributor to mass shootings AT ALL.

Where did I suggest such a thing?

It suggests that events like Sandy Hook and the Pulse Massacre are fueled by a sense of glorification of violence, grandiosity and ultra-violent theatrics. Basically, mass-shooters are trying to get their fifteen minutes of infamy, with or without a pet cause or a manifesto to help drive the narrative.

And I agree with that. In fact I have suggested the same thing before,

Calling them pseudoscience does not hurt me.

Your idea that a mutant gene or genes is either a contributor to this phenomenon or that the nature of that contribution is or can be understood by current scientific paradigms is, indeed, pseudoscience. It's nothing personal, you're just wrong.

No, you are wrong.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Science certainly does not start with putting label on a problem.

Actually it can.

By putting a label on it you make it easier to group examples of the problem for study.

Look at AIDS. Without the label "AIDS" it would have taken longer to solve the underlying problem because it manifests in so many different ways. Having 10,000 As is easier to analyze than 100 Bs, 100Cs and so on.

Now, sometimes you'll end up grouping disparate problems under one label which can slow things somewhat (you have a treatment that's very good for cause A that makes up only 1% of the group--apply it to the group and you'll see poor results) but such things usually get resolved without too much difficulty--the scientists know they might be dealing with multiple causes.

 

[barbos]

Science certainly does not start with putting label on a problem.

Actually it can.

By putting a label on it you make it easier to group examples of the problem for study.

Look at AIDS. Without the label "AIDS" it would have taken longer to solve the underlying problem because it manifests in so many different ways. Having 10,000 As is easier to analyze than 100 Bs, 100Cs and so on.

Now, sometimes you'll end up grouping disparate problems under one label which can slow things somewhat (you have a treatment that's very good for cause A that makes up only 1% of the group--apply it to the group and you'll see poor results) but such things usually get resolved without too much difficulty--the scientists know they might be dealing with multiple causes.

They still observed it first.

 

[ronburgundy]

No, science shows that exact opposite. It shows that reacting to a minor confrontation with a mass killing is extremely abnormal,

That's not what I said. I said violence is pretty normal for humans and nowhere I used words "minor confrontation"

Geez, how disappointing. You just moved the goalpost to another solar system. Neither this thread nor your arguments or anyone else's have about mere "violence". It is about engaging in the mass execution of a bunch of people outside of any kind of warfare or self defense situation in which the term "mass murder" would not be used.

Here is what you said and the context in which you said it, with the critical parts underlined.

We're talking about two different levels of violence. At one level road rage ends with a shooting. At another level road rage ends up with a guy targeting a busloads or carloads of people and gunning them down, then blowing himself up.

Yes, two kind of violence, but science suggests that both are pretty normal for humans.

IOW, you said it was "normal" for humans who get cut off on the freeway [aka a minor confrontation] to respond by executing numerous people and then killing themselves.

with statistically rare being the scientific definition of abnormal. Nothing you presented in any way implies normalcy of such behavior.
All such actions are committed by people who have skin. By your "reasoning", since having skin is "normal", such actions are normal.

The fact the the gene in question is slightly more common (though still usually absent) from those who engage in such behaviors) does not make such violence "normal".
The only thing that makes it "normal" is the actual frequency of the behavior, which is rare and thus abnormal.
Even if the gene were found in 30% of people, the fact (a fact shown by all the science you cited) shows that the gene's tie to the behavior is very weak and that few people with the gene ever engage in such behavior. This shows the causal force of the gene is highly weak and contingent, making the fact that the gene is not uncommon of no relevance to the "normalcy" of the behavior.

Finally, you stats are bullshit. Only the 2R variant has an association (and a weak one) with violent crime. That variant is empirically rare in the overall human population, somewhere around 2%.

Again, I merely parroted finnish study, and they do say 30% or something in that area.

Careful, if you keep back-peddling that hard you might tear your achilles. You didn't merely parrot the study, you misinterpreted it and then used your misinterpretation to draw a completely invalid inference regarding the frequency of mass murder tendencies, implying that near 30% of people are on the brink of such mass murder and just "have not committed yet" because they haven't encountered their trigger situation to make them "pissed off enough".