1911 Beta

But why was he involved in a double murder in the first place? How does an individual reach the point where they conclude that their best course of action is to try to end someone's life?

I think a simple way of re-stating Alex's essay is that you should realize humans are very complex animals. While it may be easy to see why a dog reacts in a certain way to an outside stimulus, it is much more difficult to see why a human reacts in a certain way to an outside stimulus because a lot more "processing" goes on. Humans don't seem to react nearly as predictably as dogs because we have the capability to internalize and prioritize events into a framework that is difficult to discern from the outside without having knowledge of all prior events. However, we are still reacting and dealing with outside stimuli given our inherited ability to do so and the framework we have built up through a lifetime of reacting to stimuli. If you had access to all those prior stimulus/response events (often parents will see this with their children), you would see that humans react much more predictably than it might appear at first glance.

Somehow, this young man got to a state of believing murder was the best answer. Alex doesn't want to say he's a bad man, because that doesn't help anyone, instead ask what could have brought this person to the point where his internal framework told him the reaction that was best for his survival was to kill. That might be useful.

scorch- wrote:But why was he involved in a double murder in the first place? How does an individual reach the point where they conclude that their best course of action is to try to end someone's life?

I think a simple way of re-stating Alex's essay is that you should realize humans are very complex animals. While it may be easy to see why a dog reacts in a certain way to an outside stimulus, it is much more difficult to see why a human reacts in a certain way to an outside stimulus because a lot more "processing" goes on. Humans don't seem to react nearly as predictably as dogs because we have the capability to internalize and prioritize events into a framework that is difficult to discern from the outside without having knowledge of all prior events. However, we are still reacting and dealing with outside stimuli given our inherited ability to do so and the framework we have built up through a lifetime of reacting to stimuli. If you had access to all those prior stimulus/response events (often parents will see this with their children), you would see that humans react much more predictably than it might appear at first glance.

Somehow, this young man got to a state of believing murder was the best answer. Alex doesn't want to say he's a bad man, because that doesn't help anyone, instead ask what could have brought this person to the point where his internal framework told him the reaction that was best for his survival was to kill. That might be useful.

He lost control of the situation and his logical thought process only drew him to a crazy aggressive solution. Shoot that N

Polak wrote:So what do you want to talk about? How anti-depressants are bullshit? Which aren't they easily prescribed for what you called out, normal sadness. The purpose of life is emotional happiness, and banging butts brah. A beer in my left hand and titty in another. It doesn't matter how much money you have, you will always find a situation where it could be better or worse. I think Hernandez popped this guy because he might of connected him to another murder and was playing with the idea. That makes it understandably. STOP SNITCHING BITCHES>

They are VERY easily prescribed, I don't know what you are talking about. The vast majority of psychiatrists in private practice have little to no oversight until a complaint comes in or there's some worry of malpractice, which is pretty much never (relatively speaking). The problem with the entirety of the medical community is that most med schools do not require formal scientific training. None. Zero experience in dissecting a study and learning how to actually make sense of a publication. Instead they'll just read the abstract and results and discussion without zero understanding of methodology and making sense of the empirical foundation which a study relies on.

People who believe the purpose of life is emotional happiness are the ones who have mid-life crises. Hence why they spend money to re-attain it.

scorch- wrote:But why was he involved in a double murder in the first place? How does an individual reach the point where they conclude that their best course of action is to try to end someone's life?

I think a simple way of re-stating Alex's essay is that you should realize humans are very complex animals. While it may be easy to see why a dog reacts in a certain way to an outside stimulus, it is much more difficult to see why a human reacts in a certain way to an outside stimulus because a lot more "processing" goes on. Humans don't seem to react nearly as predictably as dogs because we have the capability to internalize and prioritize events into a framework that is difficult to discern from the outside without having knowledge of all prior events. However, we are still reacting and dealing with outside stimuli given our inherited ability to do so and the framework we have built up through a lifetime of reacting to stimuli. If you had access to all those prior stimulus/response events (often parents will see this with their children), you would see that humans react much more predictably than it might appear at first glance.

Somehow, this young man got to a state of believing murder was the best answer. Alex doesn't want to say he's a bad man, because that doesn't help anyone, instead ask what could have brought this person to the point where his internal framework told him the reaction that was best for his survival was to kill. That might be useful.

This. We can sit here and make moral judgments all we want, but it does nothing to create change. It's not very pragmatic if our intent is to stop these from happening. If someone had a brain tumor which caused them to do bad things, would we blame the person upon the removal of that tumor? I would not, personally. What they did would be horrible, and they should be seeking medical/psychological services to make sure it does not happen in the future, but I would not call that person a bad man given the variables at play.

This case, as tough as it is to swallow, is not significantly different. Though instead of a brain tumor you might have things like a tough upbringing, low SES, lack of parental care/discipline, poor or lack of proper education (hint: simply attending class does not = proper education), etc. I don't know the variables, just tossing some out there that are pretty common among murders. When you realize that free will is a myth, then you see that these variables are not things we simply abandon or ignore; they shape who we are. They are "psychological brain tumors," if you will. Disregard moral judgments and just look at the mechanisms. They are undoubtedly there.

Regarding the bold/italicize/underlined portion - if you want to have your hair blown back go read up on relation frame theory (RFT). It's a form of learning which stems from other forms of conditioning (classical, operant, etc.) and it explains why humans are significantly more complex in our cognitive processes. It's astounding, and it explains why avoiding "bad" feelings and prioritizing "good" ones is not a good route, and is in fact paradoxical in attaining happiness. It's something no other animal can do; it is one thing that makes us remarkably unique.

Polak wrote:He lost control of the situation and his logical thought process only drew him to a crazy aggressive solution. Shoot that N

This is a simplified version, but sure. He believed that his aggressive solution was the only, or best, solution to whatever distress was caused by the situation. Shooting him, however, is NOT what our response ought to be. The death penalty is not an appropriate response. Rehabilitation is the only pragmatic response.

kirk wrote:We've all been duped into believing that the purpose of life is emotional happiness, and further we've been told that money will help us get there. It's a remarkable lie and it's probably a huge factor as to why every mental illness is rising in prominence and why major depression will be the second leading cause of disability worldwide, second only to HIV/AIDS. Think about that for a moment...

And now psychiatrists can prescribe individuals antidepressants for things like grief when a family member dies, according to the newly revised definition of "depression" as per the DSM-5. We officially prescribe medication for "normal" or "healthy" sadness because we have been conditioned to fear such experiences. It's gross.

Holy shit, I actually agree with one Alex "James T." Kirk.

crawtona wrote:Holy shit, I actually agree with one Alex "James T." Kirk.

Finally being certain that you are right about something is a profound experience indeed ;]

kirk wrote:Regarding the bold/italicize/underlined portion - if you want to have your hair blown back go read up on relation frame theory (RFT). It's a form of learning which stems from other forms of conditioning (classical, operant, etc.) and it explains why humans are significantly more complex in our cognitive processes. It's astounding, and it explains why avoiding "bad" feelings and prioritizing "good" ones is not a good route, and is in fact paradoxical in attaining happiness. It's something no other animal can do; it is one thing that makes us remarkably unique.

Can you recommend any good non-textbook resources on RFT? I've really enjoyed reading Gladwell's books (slightly different field, but good examples imo) and could get into the way the information and theory was presented in the context of a history, but I have a really hard time reading through dense work and staying interested.

scorch- wrote:Can you recommend any good non-textbook resources on RFT? I've really enjoyed reading Gladwell's books (slightly different field, but good examples imo) and could get into the way the information and theory was presented in the context of a history, but I have a really hard time reading through dense work and staying interested.

That's the best book I've come across so far. It is pretty dense, but it'll be tough to come across anything more "introductory" than that. It tries to lay some foundation regarding radical behaviorism as that is what RFT is rooted in; it continues where Skinner left off. The author is a really nice guy, too. I am on a listserv with him through the Association for Contextual Behavioral Science, and I've spoken with him a few times regarding therapy stuff. If you don't feel like spending the money for that book, I'd be happy to loan you my copy (which is highlighted to death) though I realize the awkwardness of giving an internet stranger your home or work address ;]

This is also a pretty decent page trying to explain RFT in layman's terms, though it is incomplete. That is, what it says is quite accurate, but the implications of relational framing go beyond the author's presentation: http://ironshrink.com/2007/12/what-is-r ... -part-one/ (note: page 1 is kind of awkward at first, but page 2 will clarify a good amount).

I also have a PowerPoint on this from a presentation I gave, but it could be kind of tough to make sense of it because it is not thorough in itself. Threw the main topics on there, but then I filled in the rest with the oral presentation itself. Attaching to this post regardless just in case it provides some use.

Thanks for taking the time. For context, I do have 6 quarters of psych/soc undergrad, but that was about a decade ago now. I'll see if I can pick it up from internet sources. Don't worry about the book, if I did want to read it I'd just go ahead and buy it because I hate reading through another reader's highlights.

scorch- wrote:Thanks for taking the time. For context, I do have 6 quarters of psych/soc undergrad, but that was about a decade ago now. I'll see if I can pick it up from internet sources. Don't worry about the book, if I did want to read it I'd just go ahead and buy it because I hate reading through another reader's highlights.

Totally. I love this stuff so if you need clarification, do ask. It's probably one of the most important concepts in psychology, though it's a shame more people don't recognize it.

Also, be wary of internet sources. This is an incredibly complex concept and the internet hasn't been too helpful thus far. You can search the ACBS site (http://contextualscience.org/) for more resources, but I don't know how thorough they are. I am a member and can see if there are restricted sources should you be more interested.