Mentally ill OR radicalized ?

[Martin]

They self-radicalize on the Internet. Many extremist groups use a leaderless or lone wolf approach.

So what sort of person self-radicalises on the internet? It doesn't sound like normal, balanced behaviour.

 

[Sirona]

The perpetrators of these attacks are often reported as having a previous history of mental instability.
Or are you saying the authorities exaggerate the mental illness aspect of such crimes, in order to minimise a potential back-lash against particular religious communities?

That's what I think. Maybe I formulated the phrase wrongly. I don't condone violence against minorities, but I think that the religious aspect of crimes is being played down. It's often said in such cases that the perpetrator was mentally ill and so the crime "has nothing to do with (a particular) religion".

 

[Shakeel]

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

That's just false. Only a few people who commit acts of violence are insane.

 

[Shakeel]

It appears to function just like psychosis.

Except that's it's completely different from a psychosis in that a person's understanding of reality is solid.

 

[Martin]

That's what I think. Maybe I formulated the phrase wrongly. I don't condone violence against minorities, but I think that the religious aspect of crimes is being played down. It's often said in such cases that the perpetrator was mentally ill and so the crime "has nothing to do with (a particular) religion".

Yes, that's certainly possible. Another possibility is that it's actually quite difficult to assess how mental instability feeds into extremism, particularly with "loners" who self-radicalise.

 

[Martin]

Except that's it's completely different from a psychosis in that a person's understanding of reality is solid.

It might not be though. If for example somebody believes they will become a martyr and end up in heaven with free access to virgins and such - would you say that's a "solid" understanding of reality?

 

[Martin]

That's just false. Only a few people who commit acts of violence are insane.

That's far too general. We're talking about a specific group of people here.
We're not talking generally about people with mental health problems, and we're not talking generally about people who commit violent crime.
There are too many strawmen in this discussion.

 

[Martin]

So for the sake of political correctness, we shouldn't attribute extremism to religious or political beliefs, and we shouldn't attribute it to mental illness?
What should we attribute it too then?

 

[Stevicus]

So for the sake of political correctness, we shouldn't attribute extremism to religious or political beliefs, and we shouldn't attribute it to mental illness?
What should we attribute it too then?

Perhaps poverty or class differences? That seems to be the root cause of a lot of crime.

 

[Revoltingest]

Your argument has been speculative.

Well, spluh!
Twas a novel view to consider.
Don't be such a neurotypical, toots!

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, the only real objective answer then would be, I don't know if the person mentioned in the OP was mentally ill or religiously radicalized, both or neither.

I'm not sure that being religiously radicalized would constitute a mental illness, in and of itself. Either way, someone would have to label it as such, and we can only hope they do so in an objective manner.

How sane does this strike you....
- Believing that imaginary all powerful beings are real.
- Believing that a book of fairy tales is real.
- Following the dictates of that book, even if it means
killing innocent people.
- Believing that people you don't even know are out to get you.
- Believing that one is special...better than others...& that these
others are the enemy out to get you.

If that's normal, I'm glad to be abnormal.

 

[Stevicus]

How sane does this strike you....
- Believing that imaginary all powerful beings are real.
- Believing that a book of fairy tales is real.
- Following the dictates of that book, even if it means
killing innocent people.
- Believing that people you don't even know are out to get you.
- Believing that one is special...better than others...& that these
others are the enemy out to get you.

If that's normal, I'm glad to be abnormal.

Well, do we have a professional diagnosis here? Do we know that the person in the OP believed all of these things?

"Believing that one is special...better than others...& that these
others are the enemy out to get you." <-- That sounds like a group of people I often rail against. Are they insane, too?

 

[Revoltingest]

Except that's it's completely different from a psychosis in that a person's understanding of reality is solid.

As I just posted, these things strike me as the exact opposite of "solid"....
- Believing that imaginary all powerful beings are real.
- Believing that a book of fairy tales is real.
- Following the dictates of that book, even if it means
killing innocent people.
- Believing that people you don't even know are out to get you.
- Believing that one is special...better than others...& that these
others are the enemy out to get you.

Such symptoms taken as a group are different from believers
(in religion) who cope well with life & society. They're normal
enuf, & we only disagree about things that don't exist.

 

[Revoltingest]

So for the sake of political correctness, we shouldn't attribute extremism to religious or political beliefs, and we shouldn't attribute it to mental illness?
What should we attribute it too then?

The "should" being pushed by society & the PID (Psychology
Industrial Complex) is that the perpetrators of terrorism are
evil. It would be un-PC to lay any responsibility at the door of
religion, or to disrespect mentally ill people by including terrorists.
Labeling them as "evil" allows fear & hatred that won't spill over
to other groups. It is to see things as they need to be seen
rather than as they are....IMO.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, do we have a professional diagnosis here? Do we know that the person in the OP believed all of these things?

Time to state the obvious....
- This is a forum of gadflies musing & opining about things.
- We are not professionals making diagnoses of anything.
- You & I both offer our non-expert opinions.

"Believing that one is special...better than others...& that these
others are the enemy out to get you." <-- That sounds like a group of people I often rail against. Are they insane, too?

One cannot cull one from a complex of symptoms.
That would lead one astray, especially your dropping
the compulsion to murder innocent people. One must
consider the preponderance of symptoms in the complex.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's just false. Only a few people who commit acts of violence are insane.

Let's agree that both sane & insane people could be either
criminal or model citizens, ie, neither is deterministic.
But insanity can create delusions that motivate one commit
crimes that one wouldn't, had one not experienced the delusions.

 

[Stevicus]

Time to state the obvious....
- This is a forum of gadflies musing & opining about things.
- We are not professionals making diagnoses of anything.
- You & I both offer our non-expert opinions.

True, although I think we both are clear when we state that it's our non-expert opinions. As long as opinions are properly qualified and are not any deliberate attempt to mislead anyone, then it should be okay.

One cannot cull one from a complex of symptoms.
That would lead one astray, especially your dropping
the compulsion to murder innocent people. One must
consider the preponderance of symptoms in the complex.

My point here is that labeling people willy-nilly without any coherent guidelines can be problematic, at best. One could suggest that the pilot of the Enola Gay was either mentally ill or radicalized.

 

[Revoltingest]

As long as opinions are properly qualified and are not any deliberate attempt to mislead anyone, then it should be okay.

Are you trying to mislead anyone?
I didn't see that as an issue, so I wonder why you bring it up?

My point here is that labeling people willy-nilly without any coherent guidelines can be problematic, at best.

To refuse "wily-nilly" to consider reasonable
alternative views is also problematic. The status
quo shouldn't be treated as sacred. I challenge it.

One could suggest that the pilot of the Enola Gay was either mentally ill or radicalized.

One should offer reasoning.

 

[Stevicus]

Are you trying to mislead anyone?
I didn't see that as an issue, so I wonder why you bring it up?

No, I'm not trying to mislead anyone, but I've noticed some who have tried to state their opinions with such force as to imply that they're absolute facts. It's a common thing on the internet.

To refuse "wily-nilly" to consider reasonable
alternative views is also problematic.

Not sure what you mean by this.

The status
quo shouldn't be treated as sacred. I challenge it.

We agree on this point.

One should offer reasoning.

It's just meant as a counterpoint to show the flaws in reasoning (and possible double standards) by those who label others as "radicalized," "mentally ill," "terrorists," or other such labels used in common parlance.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, I'm not trying to mislead anyone, but I've noticed some who have tried to state their opinions with such force as to imply that they're absolute facts. It's a common thing on the internet.

If it's not happening in our discussion,
then it's a red herring, eh. One might
could infer that you implied something.

Not sure what you mean by this.

Posters should not reflexively dismiss views
that aren't in the psychology mainstream.

We agree on this point.

It's bound to happen occasionally.

It's just meant as a counterpoint to show the flaws in reasoning (and possible double standards) by those who label others as "radicalized," "mentally ill," "terrorists," or other such labels used in common parlance.

I don't speak for others.
They don't speak for me.