Mentally ill OR radicalized ?

[Stevicus]

I think it's more common for mental illness or instability to precede radicalisation and extremism. And sometimes people will be groomed because of their vulnerability.

Then it might be worthwhile to examine the question of how people can become more vulnerable to radicalization.

 

[VoidCat]

According to the apa

Why do some with radical views become terrorists yet others don't?

Summarizing the last 40 years of research on the connection between mental disorders and terrorist involvement, the authors conclude there is no common psychological profile for a terrorist. Rather, the evidence suggests that some types of terrorists may be more likely to possess certain psychological traits compared with the general population and that those terrorist subsamples with high rates of mental health disorders still fall below 50 percent.No single mental health disorder appears to be a predictor of terrorist involvement. They suggest that the experience of mental health disorders may be just one of many risk factors that push and pull an individual into terrorist activity.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Germany: Police puzzle over motive of Würzburg knife attacker | DW | 26.06.2021

Germany: 3 people killed in Würzburg knife attack | DW | 26.06.2021

On June 26th, there's been a stabbing spree in the German town of Würzburg. The sources I cited are "old", latest reports say that an Islamistic background is "likely". What makes me sick is the political correctness game, religious fanaticism is not to be mentioned to prevent "counter attacks" against religious minorities. And if there is a connection to a religion it's usually stated that the perpetrator is "mentally ill" INSTEAD of religiously radicalized. Why can't it be both? Mentally ill AND radicalized? Does anybody know about the factors that make individuals more likely to commit religiously-motivated acts of violence?

Because they usually aren't mentally ill and terrorist groups tend to avoid those who are mentally ill and unstable to the point of being violent.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It's really insulting to mentally ill people. That's just the media's lazy excuse they use when they don't want to think about the truth of the matter.

Yup. I am rather tired of being lumped in with mass shooters and terrorists. Any time there is violence and it's "the mentally ill." "**** you, too" should be the appropriate and acceptable response.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The truth of the matter could be that sane people wouldn't indulge in such extremism.

No, it's a fact a bull**** myth is very alive and heavily perpetuated here, and the facts are being challenged.
Sane people, like it or not, make up the rank and file of terrorist groups and especially their leadership.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It can certainly differ from expressions of other mental illnesses,
eg, schizophrenia, in origin & symptoms, but the outcome is
still a mental dysfunction severe enuf to be labelled thus.

Except they really aren't.
Think about it. Would you want someone in your group where orders have to be followed to be hearing voices amd doing what the voices say? Would you want someone who probe to bouts of explosive and blind rage?

 

[exchemist]

Because they usually aren't mentally ill and terrorist groups tend to avoid those who are mentally ill and unstable to the point of being violent.

But a lot of these people are not recruited by a group of terrorists at all. Often they act alone.

 

[Revoltingest]

Except they really aren't.
Think about it. Would you want someone in your group where orders have to be followed to be hearing voices amd doing what the voices say? Would you want someone who probe to bouts of explosive and blind rage?

I'd not want such things.
But how does that make religious radicalization not mental illness?

 

[Stevicus]

I'd not want such things.
But how does that make religious radicalization not mental illness?

I guess it depends on how one defines "radicalized" and/or "mental illness."

It's the same conundrum when it comes to defining "terrorist." As it is said, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

 

[Martin]

No, it's a fact a bull**** myth is very alive and heavily perpetuated here, and the facts are being challenged.
Sane people, like it or not, make up the rank and file of terrorist groups and especially their leadership.

I imagine it's the kind of organisation that psychopaths would be drawn to.

 

[Revoltingest]

I guess it depends on how one defines "radicalized" and/or "mental illness."

It's the same conundrum when it comes to defining "terrorist." As it is said, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

It always pays to look at fundamental (dictionary) definitions.
I start there.

 

[epronovost]

I disagree, I think there is a correlation.

You would be wrong. Mentally ill people are slightly less likely to commit crimes than sane people and more likely to be the victim of crimes. Mentally ill people are more likely to commit suicide or other kind of self harm.

People who are likely to be radicalized by terrorist and hate groups generally have the following traits:

1) They are young adults or teenagers
2) They are men
3) They are lonely or isolated
4) They are angry of their current circumstances
5) They wish to project strength and certitude

 

[Martin]

You would be wrong. Mentally ill people are slightly less likely to commit crimes than sane people and more likely to be the victim of crimes. Mentally ill people are more likely to commit suicide or other kind of self harm.

But we're not talking about crime generally, we're talking about violent acts linked to extremism.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'd not want such things.
But how does that make religious radicalization not mental illness?

It's not. It's something entirely different.

I imagine it's the kind of organisation that psychopaths would be drawn to.

Overall, not really. "Psychopaths" (it's not an actual diagnoses or condition) very generally and typically act alone, and have different urges and desires than most terrorist groups. Some might try to join, but they'd be bad fits.

But a lot of these people are not recruited by a group of terrorists at all. Often they act alone.

A lot of them are still reqruited, such as how ISIS prowled the internet to appeal to those who are primed for radicalization. These people typically aren't mentally ill, but marginalized, feeling powerless, typically young and male, and generally drawn in on the desires and urges to be a part of something and to make a positive change in the world.

 

[Revoltingest]

These people typically aren't mentally ill, but marginalized, feeling powerless, typically young and male, and generally drawn in on the desires and urges to be a part of something and to make a positive change in the world.

I see it as a risk factor for the mental illness
of radicalization that divorces them from reality.

 

[SigurdReginson]

I think blaming something like this on "mental illness" seems comparable to blaming something like this on "religion" or "politics." Instead of pulling vague theories out of the ether, let's narrow it down to something specific.

Which mental illness have these people all been diagnosed with that correlates to this very specific kind of violence? Honestly, "mental illness" ain't gonna cut it by itself. Seems like a lazily assembled scapegoat to me that needs to be fleshed out more before it sees the light of day - unless, of course, it's just another spin piece...

 

[74x12]

Germany: Police puzzle over motive of Würzburg knife attacker | DW | 26.06.2021

Germany: 3 people killed in Würzburg knife attack | DW | 26.06.2021

On June 26th, there's been a stabbing spree in the German town of Würzburg. The sources I cited are "old", latest reports say that an Islamistic background is "likely". What makes me sick is the political correctness game, religious fanaticism is not to be mentioned to prevent "counter attacks" against religious minorities. And if there is a connection to a religion it's usually stated that the perpetrator is "mentally ill" INSTEAD of religiously radicalized. Why can't it be both? Mentally ill AND radicalized? Does anybody know about the factors that make individuals more likely to commit religiously-motivated acts of violence?

Isn't it sad how they "puzzle" over the motive? Highly trained veteran police detectives and it's all too hard to figure out.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But we're not talking about crime generally, we're talking about violent acts linked to extremism.

And you've been presented with evidence that shows this is not the case.

According to the apa
Why do some with radical views become terrorists yet others don't?
Is it possible to identify those who will and will not become involved in terrorism in the future? This question is of central importance to those given the task of assessing the risk posed by individuals who may be on a trajectory toward violence. In this article, Sarma discusses the challenges of conducting risk assessment for terrorism. He describes some of the current tools for screening people who have come to the attention to the authorities as being potentially at risk, and who may be on a trajectory from radical thought to violent behavior. Sarma argues that while risk assessment for terrorism is fraught with both ethical and empirical challenges, progress can be made in the area of human judgment and decision-making and in particular the way that assessors gather, synthesize and make decisions about information. The emphasis, he stresses, should be on structured judgments rather than just adding up scores on lists of “red flag behaviors.” “In practice, evaluators consider both the presence of factors and the relevance of risk factors,” Sarma writes.
...
Social connection is at the heart of resilient communities and strategies aimed at preventing youth from embracing violent extremism, according to this article. Acknowledging the enormous controversy surrounding existing initiatives, the authors maintain that healthy partnerships between government agencies and community members can, if done right, provide appropriate early warning systems for the prevention of violent extremism.
...
This article explores how humiliation (defined as a corrosive combination of shame and anger) is often a key growth factor for terrorist conflicts. Research on humiliation as a psychological construct has barely begun, according to McCauley.
....
Summarizing the last 40 years of research on the connection between mental disorders and terrorist involvement, the authors conclude there is no common psychological profile for a terrorist. Rather, the evidence suggests that some types of terrorists may be more likely to possess certain psychological traits compared with the general population and that those terrorist subsamples with high rates of mental health disorders still fall below 50 percent.
...

And here some more to put some more nails in this myth's coffin.
Terrorism and mental illness: is there a relationship? - PubMed

This article reaffirms the view that apart from certain pathological cases, there is no causal connection between an individual's mental disorder and engagement in terrorist activity. The individual terrorist's motivations can be explained by other factors, including behavioural psychology.

The correlation between mental disorders and terrorism is weak

There is little consensus in the literature regarding the importance of mental illness in lone-actor terrorism. However, the evidence suggests that mental illness is not a key factor contributing to acts of violence in these cases.3 It is therefore erroneous to insinuate that psychiatrists have a role in identifying these individuals. It is also highly questionable whether a ‘future potential Breivik’ would – or could – be identified by psychiatrists. In the case of Breivik, the forensic psychiatric evaluation concluded that although he has narcissistic personality disorder, he was not affected by a serious mental disorder when committing the act of terrorism, nor at the time of the evaluation.

Is terrorism based on mental illness?

‘Our findings do not provide sufficient grounds for labelling all terrorists as mentally ill or for claiming that psychopathology leads to terrorism’, says Norah Schulten, one of the researchers behind the study. 'The predictive power of psychopathology is very small.

It's long past time this prejudice against the mentally ill and believing they are more likely to be violent and prone to violence dies out and relegated to the annals of history where it belongs.

 

[epronovost]

But we're not talking about crime generally, we're talking about violent acts linked to extremism.

It remains the same. The proportion of terrorists with mental illnesses is the same as that of severe criminals (murderers and the like). Terrorists are more likely to have had had a traumatic childhood, be subject to substance abuse, etc.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I see it as a risk factor for the mental illness
of radicalization that divorces them from reality.

Science and research do not agree.