http://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/05/opinio...index.html
EXCERPT: In the wake of the mass shooting in Las Vegas, Stephen Paddock's brother Eric speculated, "something went wrong in his head." But what precisely was it?
It's easy to chalk up Paddock's horrific actions simply to "evil," as politicians and media are inclined to do.
But if it's possible to gain insight into his actions at a biological level, we might be in a better position to fend off such tragedies in the future.
In the case of Paddock, there is shockingly little data on who he was, so diagnosis at a distance is impossible. Nonetheless, we can focus on some important facts to clarify the space of possibilities.
First, several people have suggested online that Paddock is a "psycho." It's important to note that technically there is no such word. A person might be psychotic (e.g. with schizophrenia, which is a disorder of cognition), or they may be psychopathic (someone who doesn't care about others). Either could be considered here, so we'll turn to these first. Paddock was almost certainly not schizophrenic....
MORE:
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/05/opinio...index.html
"It is important to note that a tumor isn't the only thing that can cause such changes in behavior: strokes or a traumatic brain injury can do the same. And one disorder in particular deserves mention: frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD). Although the name is long, this simply refers to a deterioration of two lobes of the brain, the frontal and the temporal: two regions that underpin much of the decision-making and emotion that makes us social creatures.
As these brain areas degrade, people develop frontotemporal dementia (FTD) -- and this often comes hand-in-hand with violent, asocial behavior. When I heard Paddock's age, I immediately began to wonder about this, as the onset of the disease is typically in a person's late 50s.
Patients with FTD often display altered moral feelings, diminished empathy and disinhibited behavior. Among other things, it affects a part of the brain known as the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, one of the key areas involved in moral emotions about others. Damage to that area is sometimes referred to in the medical literature as an "acquired psychopathy."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
That's certainly an interesting possibility. Pretty much rains on the freewillers' moralizing parade though. Oh fuckn well.
Why are you so fired up to defend this guy, MR?
You're taking every opportunity to exonerate him of personal responsibility.
Well, I guess we know what kind of people MR empathizes with.
(Oct 9, 2017 06:15 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Why are you so fired up to defend this guy, MR?
You're taking every opportunity to exonerate him of personal responsibility.
Well, I guess we know what kind of people MR empathizes with.
Just pointing out your freewill theory breaks down in explaining cases like this. Nobody freely chooses to do evil. There's always something making them that way. As the article makes clear.
We don't actually know what kind of case this is yet. This is all just speculation at this point, but you're so eager to jump on anything (except the anti-anxiety meds you take) to exonerate him of personal responsibility.
Without free will, you would still have trouble explaining exactly why one person with such a condition may resort to mass murder and others not get violent at all.
Quote:Without free will, you would still have trouble explaining exactly why one person with such a condition may resort to mass murder and others not get violent at all.
Brain caused psychosis certainly explains it. Freewill doesn't. Different people may react differently to their psychosis. It just so happens that he reacted with mass murder. It is what it is.
From what it looks like certain things identify that he didn't just plan an attack, but was meticulous by having noted down bulletdrop etc on a sheet of paper and of course having cameras around and in the room.
If it was just someone having a psychotic break, then they would likely act out in a given instance, not premeditate and plan to attack a music festival in advance. The build up to stockpiling and modifying weaponry and collecting bomb materials also suggests a great deal of thought and planning.
It was suggested that his intention wasn't to be a suicidal shooter, it just ended that way, so it's possible to hypothesis alternative motives like he might well have been commissioned by the darkweb to carry out the attack (It would suggest the camera's weren't just there to inform him of the police, but also to allow spectators to watch), furthermore if he had been suicidal or overly depressed, he could of easily found himself on a forum where certain socio-paths might have not just goaded him to kill himself but take others with him.
In either case though he is not/was not a victim, but a willing participant to have carried out the attack.
True. Chronic mental illness is far more likely to produce violent outbursts than premeditated.
I've had the feeling that he might have been hired as well, Stryder. You're the first person I've seen mention that possibility.
But WHY, MR, do people "react" differently? Dumb luck? Again, it sounds like you're trying to excuse his evil.
(Oct 9, 2017 07:55 PM)stryder Wrote: [ -> ]From what it looks like certain things identify that he didn't just plan an attack, but was meticulous by having noted down bulletdrop etc on a sheet of paper and of course having cameras around and in the room.
If it was just someone having a psychotic break, then they would likely act out in a given instance, not premeditate and plan to attack a music festival in advance. The build up to stockpiling and modifying weaponry and collecting bomb materials also suggests a great deal of thought and planning.
It was suggested that his intention wasn't to be a suicidal shooter, it just ended that way, so it's possible to hypothesis alternative motives like he might well have been commissioned by the darkweb to carry out the attack (It would suggest the camera's weren't just there to inform him of the police, but also to allow spectators to watch), furthermore if he had been suicidal or overly depressed, he could of easily found himself on a forum where certain socio-paths might have not just goaded him to kill himself but take others with him.
In either case though he is not/was not a victim, but a willing participant to have carried out the attack.
excellent points.
great post.
the media will be ducking & diving to avoid topics & subjects that are not pre-ordained as clean enough to whip up click bait of a government officiated formally recognised narative.
if he was african american or muslim or generic african the subject narative in the media would be boxed into publicly apathetic digestable process segments & time lines,
followed by government promises of new funding to prevent it.
note no government statments of intent for new funding of mental health.
because it does not appear to fit a pre-concieved construct of terrorism there is no public government promises of new fudning.
i find that, though very predictable for the pure capitalist ideology of US culture but somewhat endemic of the same cause & effect subjectivity.
Generic US consumers simply do not read or comprehend things outside a certain (child like thinking)narative.
Between that group & the neo-alt-right conspiracy theorists. the media flow of events for their perspective is quite clearly scripted.
(Oct 9, 2017 06:36 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:Without free will, you would still have trouble explaining exactly why one person with such a condition may resort to mass murder and others not get violent at all.
Brain caused psychosis certainly explains it. Freewill doesn't. Different people may react differently to their psychosis. It just so happens that he reacted with mass murder. It is what it is.
Quote: It just so happens that he reacted with mass murder.
indeed. i do wonder if public perception is somewhat nieve to a point when it comes to modern civility.
i.e mass murder has been extremely common historically.
along with genocide.
the concept of mixed religious & secular societys is a very modern concept.
only 1 generation ago it was normal & to expect that a gay man walking to the local shop is likely to be violently attacked just for being gay or appearing effeminate.
it is still a widely held beleif that a woman dressed in a certain way is inviting rape.
policing the wild animal in the human psyche is expensive. many power hungry people seek to profit from that and directly undermine the direct funding of public tax dollars to front line services.
(Who was Stephen Paddock?): "He was a good landlord. He kept the rents low, responded promptly to his tenants’ complaints, learned all their names and made sure they were happy. When one reliable tenant complained about a rent increase, he took half off the difference. He designed the ownership structure so his family would profit and installed his mother in a tidy house just behind the apartment complex in Mesquite, Tex."
Wealthy, professional gamblers have been killed themselves in the past due to debt, as well as some being organized-crime lords. But either rare or completely unheard of to have one engage in random (without motive) mass murder. Even gamblers who were merely born into affluence kept a low murder count
confined to reasons of inheritance and such when their black sheep of the family, roguish lifestyle was finally hitting the rocks. Paddock didn't fall into those classic tropes of the "playing for stakes" type of human. But staying up night after night playing video poker for 14 hours straight, with little social contact in between, probably contributed in a minor way to un-anchoring him from reality.
I encountered a senior gambler before who was astute at quantifying things in his head and other feats, who disdainfully viewed people in general as mentally lazy cretins who deserved to be taken advantage of. But again, while similar contempt was there, Paddock didn't have a history of exploiting, say, his tenants -- just being rough around the edges at times.
“He acted like everybody worked for him and that he was above others,” said John Weinreich, 48, a former executive casino host at the Atlantis Casino Resort Spa in Reno, where he saw Mr. Paddock frequently from 2012 to 2014. When Mr. Paddock wanted food while he was gambling, he wanted it immediately and would order with more than one server if the meal did not arrive quickly enough.
Mr. Weinreich said he would get irritated and “uppity about it.”
Mr. Paddock was uncompromising but he was also smart.
“I would liken him to a chess player: very analytical and a numbers guy,” Mr. Weinreich said. “He seemed to be working at a higher level mentally than most people I run into in gambling.”
[...]
“He was frustrated by people who did stupid things,” Mr. Franks said.
He was also willing to fight to defend what was his. During the riots in Los Angeles in the 1990s, he went to the roof of an apartment complex he owned in a flak jacket and armed with a gun, waiting for the rioters, Mr. Franks said.
Though Mr. Paddock might have adopted an accommodating attitude toward his tenants and dressed casually — Mr. Franks remembered him regularly wearing sandals and a sweatsuit — Mr. Paddock was focused and astute when he made deals.
“He was a tough negotiator,” Mr. Franks said. “He wanted his price. His terms. He was a very savvy businessman.” (Who was Stephen Paddock?)
- - -