Given the recurring threat of shootings (in schools and elsewhere), I figured reading up about Columbine might give me more insight into what causes it.
I hesitate to give an authoritative answer, especially because it looks like at least one of the shooters (Eric Harris) really was a psychopath. At least, most of the experts reviewing the case seemed to think so.
That's something I don't think any of has a firm grasp on, in that the thought processes are so different. I can make educated guesses, based on my fascination with human nature, into the underlying reasons for most people's behavior. Nothing I'd use in a professional manner (i.e. I don't go around diagnosing people, or claiming I know how to treat them, or anything like that)... it's more taking the whole concept of "there but for the grace of God, go I" to an extreme. I figure out what would make me think a certain action is justified, or right - since most people think they are the heroes of their own stories, and therefore don't like to think of themselves as knowingly doing wrong - and can generally guess at the justifications we give ourselves for our behavior.
Psychopaths throw that off, though. Eric Harris at times didn't consider himself the hero in his own story, so in some ways there's a bit less of that self-deception, maybe? A cold calculation of what's in his interest where most people fudge their reasons and pretend they're really doing it for everyone's benefit.
Plus, well, there's that genuine willingness to hurt people, where (as I talked before, regarding the book On Killing) it takes most people more work to cross that line.
Anyways, that's something better left to the professionals, though I do like knowing what sorts of things to look for irl, since we all have probably encountered at least one. (They're not necessarily all violent, and I think there was a recent book talking about the "sociopath next door". And although sociopaths are not psychopaths, and apparently aren't even a medical diagnosis, it captures the notion that people on the anti-social spectrum are everywhere.)
Instead, I wanted to talk more about the underlying social vulnerabilities...
That is, mass shootings are a complex topic in which there is plenty of blame to go around. I do prefer keeping most of it on the person responsible for the shooting, as they could have chosen to react to whatever it is differently, but these shootings take place in a larger context. And it's worth considering that larger context, at times.
The author of Columbine said the following about these shooters:
You could also describe that as frustration, frustration at the inability to become who we want to be. Frustration at a system that is uncaring, that doesn't value the potential we all have inside.
What is it about our system that leaves so many people frustrated and lonely? Wondering whether their existence even matters? And can't we do better?
I've heard all sorts of explanations and guesses for why someone thinks killing a bunch of other people is acceptable, from video games to music to atheism to whatever.
To me, though, this feels like the truest answer. That too many people feel as though 'the system' is a massive machine that doesn't care at all about you, specifically. You're just a cog in the wheel, and easily replaceable, so you're not even a very important cog at that. And everyone else appears to be perfectly fine with being cogs (although that's really not true. Everyone seems to struggle with this in their own way, though most 'normal' people find some way of accepting it well enough to make a living).
I think that also is why medieval fantasies are so appealing, and feudal society. Because we generally fantasize that we're nobles or knights or something, not the (far too many) peasants... and feudal society had relationships. You served as a vassal to someone higher up the hierarchy, someone you knew on a personal level and who (if they were a good liege) took care of you, in turn. It's more personal than the bureaucratic red tape of today, and people kind of miss that.
I think that's also why the military does so well with recruits from the lower socio-economic classes. NCOs generally take care of their soldiers on a personal level you don't see much of anywhere else. They often act like a cruder, tougher mother or father figure, tbh.
I think that's also why the 'Good Ol' Boy' network doesn't seem like such a bad thing to those who fit in. To them, it's not about subverting the system by promoting their buddies - and maybe even covering up for their buddies. It's just networking, building that personal connection with other people in positions of influence. (The real problem is that people tend to feel comfortable with and make friends with people like themselves, so when all the people in positions of influence were of a specific type - like, say, white men - their network tended to be composed solely of people like themselves... and so that personal network was rather exclusionary, giving them an advantage that wasn't accessible to people who didn't fit the mold.)
If such a network was truly open to all, if we could rely on people to find and develop talent even when it doesn't look exactly like them, maybe it wouldn't be so bad. But that takes a lot of self-awareness and effort that many people don't bother with. They can't really explain why they just 'click' with one person and not another, but they do... and so they'll give internships to that up-and-coming young guy who reminds them of themselves back in college, or decide to take a chance on an inexperienced young man, and dismiss everyone else as somehow not having it what it takes, or not being as talented, when it's entirely possible that it's just that they're somehow different and don't 'click' as well.
I hesitate to give an authoritative answer, especially because it looks like at least one of the shooters (Eric Harris) really was a psychopath. At least, most of the experts reviewing the case seemed to think so.
That's something I don't think any of has a firm grasp on, in that the thought processes are so different. I can make educated guesses, based on my fascination with human nature, into the underlying reasons for most people's behavior. Nothing I'd use in a professional manner (i.e. I don't go around diagnosing people, or claiming I know how to treat them, or anything like that)... it's more taking the whole concept of "there but for the grace of God, go I" to an extreme. I figure out what would make me think a certain action is justified, or right - since most people think they are the heroes of their own stories, and therefore don't like to think of themselves as knowingly doing wrong - and can generally guess at the justifications we give ourselves for our behavior.
Psychopaths throw that off, though. Eric Harris at times didn't consider himself the hero in his own story, so in some ways there's a bit less of that self-deception, maybe? A cold calculation of what's in his interest where most people fudge their reasons and pretend they're really doing it for everyone's benefit.
Plus, well, there's that genuine willingness to hurt people, where (as I talked before, regarding the book On Killing) it takes most people more work to cross that line.
Anyways, that's something better left to the professionals, though I do like knowing what sorts of things to look for irl, since we all have probably encountered at least one. (They're not necessarily all violent, and I think there was a recent book talking about the "sociopath next door". And although sociopaths are not psychopaths, and apparently aren't even a medical diagnosis, it captures the notion that people on the anti-social spectrum are everywhere.)
Instead, I wanted to talk more about the underlying social vulnerabilities...
That is, mass shootings are a complex topic in which there is plenty of blame to go around. I do prefer keeping most of it on the person responsible for the shooting, as they could have chosen to react to whatever it is differently, but these shootings take place in a larger context. And it's worth considering that larger context, at times.
The author of Columbine said the following about these shooters:
"Most are desperate boys yearning to salve a deep wound. Insignificance. Worthlessness. Social invisibility. This boy has dreamed and prayed, for so long, of someone loving him, noticing him, above all respecting him. Not that he deserves it. He sure doesn't respect himself."
You could also describe that as frustration, frustration at the inability to become who we want to be. Frustration at a system that is uncaring, that doesn't value the potential we all have inside.
What is it about our system that leaves so many people frustrated and lonely? Wondering whether their existence even matters? And can't we do better?
I've heard all sorts of explanations and guesses for why someone thinks killing a bunch of other people is acceptable, from video games to music to atheism to whatever.
To me, though, this feels like the truest answer. That too many people feel as though 'the system' is a massive machine that doesn't care at all about you, specifically. You're just a cog in the wheel, and easily replaceable, so you're not even a very important cog at that. And everyone else appears to be perfectly fine with being cogs (although that's really not true. Everyone seems to struggle with this in their own way, though most 'normal' people find some way of accepting it well enough to make a living).
I think that also is why medieval fantasies are so appealing, and feudal society. Because we generally fantasize that we're nobles or knights or something, not the (far too many) peasants... and feudal society had relationships. You served as a vassal to someone higher up the hierarchy, someone you knew on a personal level and who (if they were a good liege) took care of you, in turn. It's more personal than the bureaucratic red tape of today, and people kind of miss that.
I think that's also why the military does so well with recruits from the lower socio-economic classes. NCOs generally take care of their soldiers on a personal level you don't see much of anywhere else. They often act like a cruder, tougher mother or father figure, tbh.
I think that's also why the 'Good Ol' Boy' network doesn't seem like such a bad thing to those who fit in. To them, it's not about subverting the system by promoting their buddies - and maybe even covering up for their buddies. It's just networking, building that personal connection with other people in positions of influence. (The real problem is that people tend to feel comfortable with and make friends with people like themselves, so when all the people in positions of influence were of a specific type - like, say, white men - their network tended to be composed solely of people like themselves... and so that personal network was rather exclusionary, giving them an advantage that wasn't accessible to people who didn't fit the mold.)
If such a network was truly open to all, if we could rely on people to find and develop talent even when it doesn't look exactly like them, maybe it wouldn't be so bad. But that takes a lot of self-awareness and effort that many people don't bother with. They can't really explain why they just 'click' with one person and not another, but they do... and so they'll give internships to that up-and-coming young guy who reminds them of themselves back in college, or decide to take a chance on an inexperienced young man, and dismiss everyone else as somehow not having it what it takes, or not being as talented, when it's entirely possible that it's just that they're somehow different and don't 'click' as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment