David Eagleman: The mystery of Stephen Paddock's brain

[Leigha]

People try to make sense of the senseless. This wasn't a religious zealot with a specific motive, this wasn't a disgruntled employee returning to seek revenge on his employer for firing him, etc...this was just what seems to be, a random guy who lost his mind. But, do people just lose their mind over night? I think that the guy's family history dating back to when he was a child, speaks volumes as to how dysfunctional he and his brothers were, mainly because their dad was a criminal, and often on the run. But, why does someone else who grows up in an equally dysfunctional home, live a productive, full life, while this guy decided to destroy life, including his own?

Was it nature, or was it nurture? I think that it might be a bit of both, but kids that aren't nurtured often times become sociopaths. I happen to think that Paddock was a sociopath. Only a sociopath could carry out such an act. Only someone with no empathy and a malformed conscience could commit such a massacre. We probably will never know with certainty what triggered Paddock, but we seem to have a need as a society to come up with something...anything...because it's just too frightening to think that someone like Paddock, could be our neighbor or coworker, and we wouldn't notice the red flags. It's too frightening to think of Paddock as just another guy with depression who was lonely, and one day he chose to end it all...because that could be one of us, maybe. Depression, loneliness, sadness, grief from a horrible childhood, etc are all conditions that can cause a person to go over the edge.

If the Las Vegas shooting was the result of a terrorist attack, we can easily separate ourselves from terrorists...for we can't imagine thinking like them, acting like them. But, this guy. He is like everyone else, grappling with problems like everyone else. We keep reading about what type of businessman he was, and that he was wealthy...who cares? He obviously wasn't happy, and most likely, many people throughout his life noticed that. But, such is life...we notice red flags all the time, and do nothing...say nothing.

Until it's too late.

[Syne]

People try to make sense of the senseless. This wasn't a religious zealot with a specific motive, this wasn't a disgruntled employee returning to seek revenge on his employer for firing him, etc...this was just what seems to be, a random guy who lost his mind. But, do people just lose their mind over night? I think that the guy's family history dating back to when he was a child, speaks volumes as to how dysfunctional he and his brothers were, mainly because their dad was a criminal, and often on the run. But, why does someone else who grows up in an equally dysfunctional home, live a productive, full life, while this guy decided to destroy life, including his own?

Was it nature, or was it nurture? I think that it might be a bit of both, but kids that aren't nurtured often times become sociopaths. I happen to think that Paddock was a sociopath. Only a sociopath could carry out such an act. Only someone with no empathy and a malformed conscience could commit such a massacre. We probably will never know with certainty what triggered Paddock, but we seem to have a need as a society to come up with something...anything...because it's just too frightening to think that someone like Paddock, could be our neighbor or coworker, and we wouldn't notice the red flags. It's too frightening to think of Paddock as just another guy with depression who was lonely, and one day he chose to end it all...because that could be one of us, maybe. Depression, loneliness, sadness, grief from a horrible childhood, etc are all conditions that can cause a person to go over the edge.

If the Las Vegas shooting was the result of a terrorist attack, we can easily separate ourselves from terrorists...for we can't imagine thinking like them, acting like them. But, this guy. He is like everyone else, grappling with problems like everyone else. We keep reading about what type of businessman he was, and that he was wealthy...who cares? He obviously wasn't happy, and most likely, many people throughout his life noticed that. But, such is life...we notice red flags all the time, and do nothing...say nothing.

Until it's too late.

Seems just as convenient to simply label him as a sociopath as a terrorist. I mean, I hope you can separate yourself from sociopaths. If his brothers didn't resort to mass murder, then it seems something more than nurture is involved. And if he was just born with a extra susceptibility for sociopathy, then it's just dumb luck that, as MR seems to argue, kind of absolves him of responsibility.

[Leigha]

People try to make sense of the senseless. This wasn't a religious zealot with a specific motive, this wasn't a disgruntled employee returning to seek revenge on his employer for firing him, etc...this was just what seems to be, a random guy who lost his mind. But, do people just lose their mind over night? I think that the guy's family history dating back to when he was a child, speaks volumes as to how dysfunctional he and his brothers were, mainly because their dad was a criminal, and often on the run. But, why does someone else who grows up in an equally dysfunctional home, live a productive, full life, while this guy decided to destroy life, including his own?

Was it nature, or was it nurture? I think that it might be a bit of both, but kids that aren't nurtured often times become sociopaths. I happen to think that Paddock was a sociopath. Only a sociopath could carry out such an act. Only someone with no empathy and a malformed conscience could commit such a massacre. We probably will never know with certainty what triggered Paddock, but we seem to have a need as a society to come up with something...anything...because it's just too frightening to think that someone like Paddock, could be our neighbor or coworker, and we wouldn't notice the red flags. It's too frightening to think of Paddock as just another guy with depression who was lonely, and one day he chose to end it all...because that could be one of us, maybe. Depression, loneliness, sadness, grief from a horrible childhood, etc are all conditions that can cause a person to go over the edge.

If the Las Vegas shooting was the result of a terrorist attack, we can easily separate ourselves from terrorists...for we can't imagine thinking like them, acting like them. But, this guy. He is like everyone else, grappling with problems like everyone else. We keep reading about what type of businessman he was, and that he was wealthy...who cares? He obviously wasn't happy, and most likely, many people throughout his life noticed that. But, such is life...we notice red flags all the time, and do nothing...say nothing.

Until it's too late.

Seems just as convenient to simply label him as a sociopath as a terrorist. I mean, I hope you can separate yourself from sociopaths. If his brothers didn't resort to mass murder, then it seems something more than nurture is involved. And if he was just born with a extra susceptibility for sociopathy, then it's just dumb luck that, as MR seems to argue, kind of absolves him of responsibility.

Sociopaths know right from wrong, but they just don't care. That's an inconvenient truth, if you ask me. Sociopathy usually stems from a traumatic childhood, or the child at least perceives it as so, and develops a way of coping that leads him/her to become a sociopath/psychopath. So, it wouldn't be that far fetched to diagnose him as a sociopath, except sociopathy/psychopathy is hard to accurately diagnose, since it's primarily a personality disorder. 

Sociopathy isn't an excuse for heinous behavior, but it can be a reason. Just my perspective, but I feel it's important to know the potential reasons as to why someone commits crimes. Even those involved with this investigation are trying to figure out the motive of Paddock's rampage, because it must be insightful to some extent. Motive doesn't mean we excuse the person, but it helps people when dealing with catastrophic events like this.

[Syne]

The problem is that speculation of one "reason" is no better than any other. Right now, it's just a way for you to feel you have a handle on a terrible and unpredictable event. You're even going so far as to advocate policy changes based on pure speculation.

I agree, when there's actual evidence of motive, it will help people cope. Until then, speculation used to advocate policy is pushing a political agenda on the graves of the victims.

[Leigha]

So, what should we all do with news like this? Perhaps, in the end, there is no motive that we can come up with, for why Paddock did what he did. How do we move forward as a society? Crack down on stricter gun laws? That isn't a bad idea, but guns didn't propel this guy to go on a rampage. Guns were the means with which he carried it out.

Is it wrong to want to know with some level of certainty...why he carried it out?

You want people to accept responsibility for their actions, I agree with you. In this case, there really is no justice, as Paddock took his own life. If he had survived, what would justice look like to you, in this situation?

[Syne]

So, what should we all do with news like this? Perhaps, in the end, there is no motive that we can come up with, for why Paddock did what he did. How do we move forward as a society? Crack down on stricter gun laws? That isn't a bad idea, but guns didn't propel this guy to go on a rampage. Guns were the means with which he carried it out.

Is it wrong to want to know with some level of certainty...why he carried it out?

You want people to accept responsibility for their actions, I agree with you. In this case, there really is no justice, as Paddock took his own life. If he had survived, what would justice look like to you, in this situation?

Exactly. Maybe we never learn the motive. Should we then just assume whatever motive best suits our political agenda?
Speculation is comforting. But speculation used to justify real world policies is just plain nuts.
You've already advocated for stricter gun control....based on your speculation alone.

Responsibility is not the same as justice. Justice for such evil is often just the pale impression we call vengeance. We can hold him morally accountable without ever finding justice. And if we caught him, that's all the justice we'd ever get. We cannot take from him the equivalent amount of life he took from others. It's even overly idealistic to think that we can ever predict or prevent such heinous acts of evil in the future.

And until any motive becomes known, I think we can all agree to just call it evil. And we already have policies against evil...but people seem infinitely creative...even in evil.

[Leigha]

Evil. Hmm. That seems like more of a cop out, honestly. The term ''evil'' to me seems to imply that something outside of a person caused them to behave in a terrible way ...'the devil made me do it,'' etc. You may not be meaning it to come out that way, but that's what comes to mind.

What is evil, and how does one define it? There are some religious people who think homosexuality is ''evil.'' There are others who think that liberals are ''evil.'' Sounds a bit subjective, and also like a cop out for when we don't really want to dig deeper into the real reasons why people do what they do. Not saying you're ''wrong'' to think this way, but it doesn't allow for more critical thinking, just my thoughts to it.

[Syne]

Evil. Hmm. That seems like more of a cop out, honestly. The term ''evil'' to me seems to imply that something outside of a person caused them to behave in a terrible way ...'the devil made me do it,'' etc. You may not be meaning it to come out that way, but that's what comes to mind.

What is evil, and how does one define it? There are some religious people who think homosexuality is ''evil.'' There are others who think that liberals are ''evil.'' Sounds a bit subjective, and also like a cop out for when we don't really want to dig deeper into the real reasons why people do what they do. Not saying you're ''wrong'' to think this way, but it doesn't allow for more critical thinking, just my thoughts to it.

Not at all. Evil is a potential inherent in every human. It comes from personal motives and a lack of moral character allowing them to justify increasingly appalling acts.

Most religious people do not think homosexuality is "evil"....just a sin...that warrants a different response than the sinner themselves (e.g. "hate the sin, love the sinner"). Homosexuality generally doesn't harm others...unless you're in California, where they're seeking to reduce the penalties for knowing infecting others with HIV.
Similarly for liberals. The question is whether the policies they advocate do harm. And as with all evil, intent is a factor. With enough evil intent, no amount of simple ignorance can be excused.

I'm just as interested as anyone else about the Vegas shooter's motives. I just think it's more rational and practical not to advocate policy on mere speculation. (Conservative is a synonym for moderate, you know). We have to have evidence for a motive before we can try to formulate a preventative measure. I mean, for all we know, his motive could have been infamy...in which case a more appropriate response would be to refrain from airing pictures and names of mass shooters in the media. And that would likely take voluntary cooperation...unless you're just as willing to place restrictions on the first amendment (freedom of speech) as you are on the second.

[Leigha]

Fair enough, Syne. Not 100% in agreement about your idea that we are all potentially inherently ''evil,'' but I see your point.

But, here we are again. What should society do about what happened in Las Vegas? Is there any insight that we can take away from it? How does society move forward? Should society just say ''it was an act of evil, and we can't make sense of evil?''

Maybe we just want answers, and there are none. Only speculation.

(Conservative is not a synonym for moderate...lol)

[Syne]

The human potential for evil only materializes due to character/moral weakness. If I were as morally lacking, I certainly could justify an awful lot (due to my intelligence) to sate whatever petty jealousies and insecurities I might harbor. But awareness of human nature (of which history is replete with horrendous examples) is some defense against the worst of it.

What should society do? Maybe quit trying to undermine traditional family values and structure (which the lack of correlates to crime, drug abuse, depression, etc.). Maybe realize that school or government policy cannot instill nor legislate moral values...which are the only real defense against evil. Maybe even realize that trying to excise god from all public discourse is foolish when the influence of Christianity is overwhelmingly more positive than negative.

There are things we can do, but people are much more concerned about their agendas than looking for actually causes and accepting the obvious remedies. Guns, mental illness, radicalization, etc. are not primary causes, they are symptoms.



"But University of Nebraska associate criminology professor Joseph Schwartz, who studies genetic links to criminal activity, cautioned against making assumptions based on Benjamin Paddock’s history and reports of Stephen Paddock’s anti-social behavior.

“It’s human nature to try to speculate and try to understand something so terrible,” he said. “In reality, (mistreating someone) is not a precursor to collecting multiple semi-automatic weapons and shooting at people from a hotel window.”

Schwartz said research shows the genesis of criminal behavior can be equally attributed to genetics and environmental influences. But it’s impossible to determine the role genetics plays in the behavior of any specific individual. And the criminal behavior usually manifests itself at a young age, in the late teens and early 20s, not in the senior years. Stephen Paddock, a Mesquite resident and high-rolling video poker player in Las Vegas casinos, had no criminal history before carrying out Sunday’s massacre at age 64 and killing himself.

“If he had a high predisposition for criminal and violent behavior, we likely would have seen that earlier in his life,” Schwartz said. Problem gambling also has a genetic link, he said." - https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/shoo...las-vegas/

(Conservative is not a synonym for moderate...lol)

LOL! Look it up for yourself.

Conservative, temperate, and moderate are all synonyms.