Depends on how you define expert. Somethings maybe, many things no. When I am not an expert I don't make such certain claims because I know there may be a lot I do not know.

You realize you just said you were an expert in "some things" [sic], but didn't bother to offer what you think "expert" means? 

Everything depends on how you define things.  Maybe using the generally accepted definition is a reasonable starting point.

Why would you ask ME if I'm an expert on this topic, when you have no definitive opinion on what that even means?

i don't have any credentials in the topic of psychopaths or what "unique motivations" almost school shooters may or may not be experiencing.  But, I have lived a long time, been to a lot of places, seen all kinds of people, and experienced people with mental issues, emotional problems and even those who committed horrible crimes.  Some might say that gives a person "street creds", which I've often seen outweigh purely academic information which was memorized and many times regurgitated without assimilation.

My ex has a double major in psychology and sociology.  Even with that degree, I was still better at analyzing what people are going through, why they do what they do, and how to best solve a situation involving some pretty difficult and dangerous behaviors.  Not saying that was 100% of the time, but I've been told by many I'm have a knack for reading people and situations, and that means my analysis and solutions are usually spot on.

Wrong. I said "somethings maybe". I said maybe because depending on how you defined expert I may or may not be an expert in your eyes. You might use a colloquial definition or a legal definition


You are free to make the case that you are an expert in prison administration if you wish. Otherwise under what grounds would you have to criticize my statement about the probability of an inmate giving an interview to try and obtain a benefit? In the end does it really matter either way to your point or mine? Not really so lets just set the whole expert question aside.

In the end you can question the reliability of the interviews, that is certainly a scientifically valid question, but it seems like you are letting your theory lead rather than the evidence. Even if there is some motive for these people to feign remorse you cannot prove that the remorse they exhibited is fake. And given the relatively small amount of living mass shooters willing to talk we have use the data available. There should always be a question of whether someone is telling the truth in a qualitative study but the mere possibility of dishonesty shouldn't make us throw everything out or we end up with very little to help understand, and thus help reduce mass shooters.



I think perhaps the issue is that you were using psychopath in a colloquial sense while I was referring to a psychological diagnosis.

Why?  Are you an expert in psychological diagnosis?

Nope, that's why I rely on expert diagnosis data instead

Are you an expert in researching, evaluating and analyzing expert diagnosis data?

Or do you just post links that Gurgle feeds you?

Says the guy who googled rates of psychopaths among murderers and tried, but failed, to turn that into proof of his claim....

Bottom line here is that you made a statement about psychopathy in mass shooters you cannot back up.

i never offered anything as proof of any claim.

i merely used it as rebuttal to your weak posts and opinions.

Bottom line is you keep harping on this one case as if the ALMOST shooter is an actual shooter.  That all by itself disproves anything you claimed via a YT video.

So why are you trying so hard to disqualify this guy's experience in trying to understand mass shooters? Would you tell people who attempted suicide that their experiences aren't relevant because they didn't succeed?

You claimed all mass shooters are psychopaths and we have gone in circles with you failing to ever support your hypothesis. That hypothesis rebutted nothing I said.

This whole time you have sought, for unknown reasons, to call into question what this guy said to Jordan Peterson. Not based on any real scientific argument rather just your assertion that someone who didn't complete his plan shouldn't count. Mind you Jordan Peterson is an accomplished psychologist with clinical experience and he thought the story worth sharing rather than suggesting his experiences didn't count.

So why are you trying so hard to disqualify this guy's experience in trying to understand mass shooters? Would you tell people who attempted suicide that their experiences aren't relevant because they didn't succeed?

If one never follows thru with it, how valid are their experiences?

Number one: his "experience" is irrelevant, because he never executed anyone. 

Number two:  compared to suicide victims, he has a better chance of surviving in order the share his experience, but he decided to not go through with it.  That decision tells me he was never a mass shooter and will never be one.  He's probably not a psychopath.

All the shooters that actually -- in reality -- committed mass murder are/were psychopaths.  Anyone with a small amount of empathy for their victims would not do what they did. It's a simple formula.  No empathy = psychopath.  Empathy = not a psychopath.

I disagree. Would you say a depressed person's experiences are invalid because they didn't go through with a suicide attempt?


I don't think that can be concluded based off that information. There are more than one reason a person may fail to complete such a plan than simply they weren't psychopaths. Inability to obtain a firearm, for example, or overcoming a depressed period, or circumstances changing.


Ok, you can believe that but it isn't in the data on the subject.

Suicide attempts only target one person.  Unless the person is going to commit mass murder in an attempt to go out in a blaze of glory, suicides and mass murderers are not the same.  Trying to say ones attempt is the same as the other's "almost' is comparing apples to oranges.  Just because an attempted suicide is worth "studying" doesn't mean an "almost" mass murderer is also worth studying.  In other words, one tried and failed, but the other never even got to the starting line.  Now, had he tried to shoot up a school and his gun jammed, he was stopped by someone, or he just couldn't get into the locked down facility when he arrived, then he would have been an "attempted", not an "almost."  See the difference, or do i have to keep beating this dead horse until it's glue?

You said the "Almost shooter" made plans, gathered what he needed, and was prepared to kill.  So, your hypothetical "couldn't obtain a firearm" condition fails to be relevant.  Would someone planning to commit mass murder suddenly stop because they "woke up" from a period of depression?  Would they let one avenue of obtaining a gun stop them, or would they try others?  If they let depression drive them to kill others, then they were already in a psychopathic state -- which bolsters my claim.  People don't hurt others because they are depressed.  They hurt themselves.  if they choose suicide by cop via mass murder, they were already psychopathic --they just needed the depression to push them to act on their unhealthy mental state.

"Circumstances changing" is a hole big enough to drive the Titanic through.  Could you be any more ambiguous?  Depression ending is "circumstances changing."  Being unable to get a firearm is "Circumstances changing."   Forgetting to set an alarm clock and sleeping through the entire school day is circumstances changing.  ...

a

(1) I was not saying suicidal people are akin to mass shooters, I only used that example to address the question of whether going through with the act had any bearing on whether their accounts were accurate/useful for study. There is however a suicide element to mass shooters so I think it may be more applicable than you think.

(2) I don't know where you draw the starting line. Certainly I would not equate a person who thinks of suicide or fantasizes about mass shootings to someone who actually attempts the act but things are not that clearly delineated. Someone could be standing at the edge of a tall building or could have the gun at school, about to go through with it, but then back down last second. There was one guy who had everything in place but apparently decided to just commit suicide instead of taking others with him.

The guy in this interview had everything in place and was only waiting on the gun to be delivered. That seems like a very relevant aspect. Would someone planning to commit mass murder wake up? I don't see why not, they can have epiphanies, they can have friends who come to the rescue, etc.

You use this reasoning that if someone did X they were psychopathic but that just isn't supported by the data. You say people who didn't attempt don't count because they didn't couldn't bring themselves to go through with it but then people who did attempt/succeed you say their story doesn't count because they could be lying about their motives. You are sticking to your preconceived notion and finding a way of discarding anything that doesn't fit.

To be fair (3)  you could make the argument that mass shooters sometimes demonstrate certain traits/behaviors which are consistent with psychopathy but that doesn't mean they are all psychopaths and summarizing their actions as just those of a psychopath are of limited use in addressing the issue of mass shootings.

Antisocial personality disorder is the underlying condition that drives psychopathy
and is among the most difficult mental health issues to treat. Research suggests
that psychopaths rarely seek treatment on their own and that when they are forced
into treatment, it usually does not lead to long-term improvements or changes.5 In
fact, some studies comparing treated and untreated psychopaths found that treatment
increases the likelihood of crime and violence in those with a history of these behaviors.

20 Signs of a Psychopath: Traits & Characteristics
https://www.choosingtherapy.com/signs-of-a-psychopath/


#Science!
#Objectivity
#Research
#Facts

(1)  Yeah.  Your analogies haven't gotten any better -- and neither have your examples meant to address a small detail rather than the overall picture.

(2) I told you.  If one attempts suicide, they started -- commenced -- began the act.  They either failed, were stopped (rushed to ER?), didn't really want to die (attention seeking) or they changed their mind.  Nevertheless, they started to end their life.  Same for a shooter. They planned, prepared, and started their attack.  They either succeeded, failed or stopped/were stopped.  There's no "almost" in "attempted."  Do you want that glue in quart or gallon containers?   

(3) There's a major difference between "exhibiting traits" and psychopathic behavior.  I think I asked, but you probably didn't answer:  have you ever watched the series, Signs of a Psychopath?  Each case is analyzed by experts in the field of aberrant behavior including psychopathy.  Although not every person demonstrated every single behavior one associates with a psychopath, they absolutely exhibited enough to be diagnosed as one.  Not everyone who's depressed gambles away their life savings, turns to alcohol or drugs, or starts contemplating suicide -- but depression can (and does) manifest in those and many other destructive or out-of-character behaviors and actions.  It's insufficient to look at empathy alone as a marker for psychopathy, but since it's the one trait nearly all psychopaths share, it would be wrong to ignore it as an indicator.

I'm discarding nothing.  I'm simply sticking to my understanding that all mass murderers are psychopaths.  You say I'm dismissing your arguments, but your arguments have yet to prove what I said is wrong.  Don't whine that I don't like your arguments.  Get better data and facts, and maybe your arguments will be good enough for me to like.   

Good analogy or not, it still makes my point good enough that you cannot just discount the experiences of someone who didn't complete a mass shooting as irrelevant or lacking value.


You are nitpicking word choice here, it seems, with the intention of discounting what people like this man had to say. That is not a genuine attempt to try and understand mass shooters. 


Bottom line is that you said all mass shooters are psychopaths but have not found any evidence to back up that statement. I checked myself and I couldn't find anything to support your statement either. You are making assumptions about what is going on inside the heads of mass shooters and calling them psychopaths based on that. That isn't science and it isn't helpful to the issue

I guess watching an edited  YouTube video of an interview is "Science" now.