Fake Banner
    Crazy Is What Crazy Does
    By Ed Chen | January 14th 2011 11:39 AM | 7 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    About Ed

    Ed is an NGO representative to the United Nations for the Lawyer's Committee on Nuclear Policy. He is a Columbia College graduate (Cum Laude; Departmental...

    View Ed's Profile
    It is well known among those who study schizophrenia that speech which does not reflect the true underlying reality produces the kinds of violent and crazy reactions displayed by the assassin of Tucsan. When we can no longer trust that the words our elected representatives, that our public servants, say are true and reflective of their beliefs, a deliberative and representative democracy can no longer function, and it will necessarily devolve into a system where might equals right and violence becomes a preferred means of political expression.

    The name of the game among significant parts of the media and parts of the political establishment today is to find simple demagogic answers too complex matters. One such matter is mental illness. The recent shooting spree by a youth in his twenties underscores the pill mentality which has brought this country to the brink of financial and ultimately societal disaster time and time again; the true and what will likely be severe consequences put off through half measures which have gotten bigger and more hysterical. Instead of assigning blame to the political rhetoric or the mental instability of the individual who committed the crimes against our public officials, perhaps it would be instructive to examine the conditions which created the motivation within the mind of the unstable individual which brought him to focus his anger upon those in the political order.

    It is simple to say that an unstable individual is simply crazy, just as it was simple to say Osama bin laden is a terrorist, and that saddam Hussein was a dictator who no one in his country supported, or that Obama is a socialist and Sarah plain is a fascist. Even in most partisan's political self conception, they would prefer to label themselves liberals, progressives, conservatives, libertarians, or whatever other ideology strikes their mind as appealing for whatever reason. However An individual who espouses an ideology only demonstrates his or her own intellectual indolence. This intellectual indolence infects the institutions of our society to the point where spirited and open minded debate on issues no longer pervade our representative institutions. Instead procedural actions dominate our politics and party line votes are the norm to a level which would put the politburos of the world to shame.

    The assassination of our public officials in Arizona by what was, by all measures, a young and intelligent, though perhaps hyper sensitive and emotionally intense individual reflects the structural failures which pervade our political system. Undoubtably the rhetoric from the right produced some of the poisonous memes which infected this young, insane, man's mind. However, without a fertile soil for these thoughts to take root, a man or woman of equal sensitivity and instability might instead choose to channel his actions, which stemmed from the idea, into a more productive means of political expression, such as forming a political action committee to "take out" the congresswoman, rather than shooting her with a gun. But the society, and particularly the media which conditions the minds of all citizens has not inculcated the level of patience required to effect this outcome within legitimate modes of action.

    Some may ask at this point, who is this guy, Ed Chen, and what formal training does he have to speak of such subjects. So let me interject with a bit of personal background. My father was a psychiatrist who treated veterans at a local veterans hospital, as well as patients in his own private practice. I grew up reading his case files as well as his textbooks, gaining a broad and inside view of the mind of the so called insane. I subsequently married(under common law, since we have stated publicly we will not formally marry until the marriage laws of the state of NY are resolved in a manner which treat marriage as a civil contract between two consenting individuals, rather than a religious institution or state institution, as some social reengineers on the right would like to reinterpret as our country's tradition, which is patently false) someone who was confined for a period early in her life to three mental hospitals, and mostly the best mental hospitals in the state. These hospitals did nothing for her, limiting her time with the doctor to at most a few minutes per day and only convincing her that she was indeed insane. However, after years of patient care and careful examination of the roots of her supposedly irrational thoughts, it became clear to me that her thoughts were completely rational - it was her fundamental assumptions which were skewed.

    But where did the assassin of Tuscan receive his assumptions regarding legitimate political action? Where did he learn that patient and sustained deliberative action was illegitimate while a quick shot to the head was a better solution? Where did he learn that violence trumps understanding and discussion? And where did he learn that political discussion leads only to further deadlock and that words uttered by politicians have lost any real truth value? I would argue he learned it from his elders, from our leaders in the media and our leaders in politics. And from the way our society has grown to deal with all problems in general, from health, to finance, from marriage to divorce.

    Consider the response to 9/11 which arguably seared an important lesson into the minds of many in my generation -- that when wronged by political opponents, a near instant, and violent response is the legitimate reaction. Neither democrats nor republicans Were able to resist the insane reaction to 9/11, a reaction which has caused more Death to both americans and those we sought to liberate from terrorism. And forget about the fact that the perpetrators of terrorism, the boogyman of our time, osama bin laden, Was trained and equipped by our own Security forces. Forget about the fact that saddam husseine was supported by our government inr the same way we continue to support the religious fundamentalists of Pakistan, support which will likely lead to the next war. Consider the war that has raged for nearly a decade. The youth I have encountered while teaching and tutoring want to become special operation soldiers rather than scientists and doctors. Consider the quote ,"you are with us or against us.".

    Consider the bipartisan partisanship which has infected our congress and media. And forget about the fact that Obama promised a new era of bipartisanship, only to shove a massive reorganization of one of the largest sectors of our economy down the throats of half the electorate. Certainly the ends were Nobel, to ensure that all Americans can know they can always have insurance, but the means were as insidious as any spawned from the ultimate Machiavellian thinker of our time, Karl rove who repeated used plays straight out of authoritarian regimes to divide and conquer the populous. Consider Keith oberlain, glenn beck, and the vitriol they constantly spew, and the liberals and conservatives who follow their words without thought. But more importantly, consider the media moguls who give Voice to ideologues rather than thinkers, and propogate invectives rather than arguments. Consider the doublespeak our public servants have taken as their primary means of communication, taking their advise from expert political consultants and pr professionals who advocate saying a lot without saying anything at all. Professionals who enrich themselves by formulating propaganda which further misinforms the minds of our youth, so that liberalism and conservatism are now ideologies rather than ideas and policies, all the while convincing the youth and increasingly the middle aged, that the political opposition is stupid, evil, selfish, and deserving of death.

    Consider the promise made by democrats to end the preemptive wars, consider the promises made by republicans to be fiscally responsible. Our political speech has degenerate into political propaganda. Crazy is what propaganda does. Finally, consider the responses offered by our representatives. This man should have been committed to a mental institution earlier, that he should be tried as a terrorist, or gun laws should have been further tightened, or that our rhetoric needs to be moderated, or that crazy is what craZY does and this was just another blip of violence in our increasingly violent society. Unless we could have psychics predict killers rather than creatives who emerge from a similar hypersensitive mind, preemptively committing him would cause grave harm to an entire class of people which can only be considered discriminatory. Tightening gun laws would likely have the same effect as prohibition. I could buy a gun in nyc tomorrow if i wanted to, for less than $300, and new york city has the tightest gun laws in the country.

    Instead it might be more productive to consider what the killer actually was thinking about the government, and why he felt the way he did. What assumptions were valid despite the illegitimate reaction, and how can we teach the next generation about legitimate political modes of expression, rather than which ideology is right and which ideology is stupid. Rather than moderate our rhetoric, which is what Obama has said he wanted for years, and what liberals have advocated without practice, perhaps it would be instructive for an extremist centrist rhetoric of judgment which condemns the hypocrisy of our political activists, both republican and democrat to emerge so that the cognitive dissonance of the daily doublespeak spewed by activists, and politicians and broadcast by the media can no longer poison the minds of our youth and undermine the foundations of our constitutional democracy, which rests upon rational and sincere debate, rather than crude political and procedural calculations conducted by professional consultants who tell the novice political aspirant that his or her thoughts are not liberal enough or conservative enough.

    Simply spend some time to consider who is really the crazy one?

    Comments

    This is something I wrote on another site, in response to a couple of comments (one of which was about the US love affair with guns, the other our love affair with war):

    It’s not our love affair with guns that’s the problem; it may be a symptom, but it’s not the problem.

    The problem is that we (the US as a nation) simply lack any real maturity. We’re terrible at conflict resolution, so we tend to fall back on force as the most-chosen way to affect the world around us.

    Furthermore, intelligent discourse is not lauded in this nation. Sharply polarized, divided views are presented as the only possible valences for any discussion, which means the vast excluded middle gets its voice utterly silenced.

    Finally, we do not value intelligence in general. This is something that’s getting worse over time. Children aren’t being taught the merit of rational thought; they’re just being forced to memorize data without actually learning how things get learned in the first place. Money goes to athletics while arts and sciences suffer. History is not taught as context, just a series of events and dates. The result is a generations-deep wave of people who have absolutely no clue how to function in a challenging, complex world.

    Fix those problems, and we won’t see as many people thinking they need to buy guns in the first place, and we might even manage to make it through a decade without bombing the hell out of some nation or other.

    ==

    By and large, I think I agree with your conclusions here. Though, Ed, the city's name is Tucson, not Tuscan.

    vongehr
    But where did the assassin of Tuscan receive his assumptions regarding legitimate political action? Where did he learn that patient and sustained deliberative action was illegitimate while a quick shot to the head was a better solution? ... Consider the response to 9/11 which arguably seared an important lesson into the minds of many in my generation -- that when wronged by political opponents, a near instant, and violent response is the legitimate reaction. Neither democrats nor republicans Were able to resist the insane reaction to 9/11, a reaction which has caused more Death to both americans and those we sought to liberate from terrorism. ...
    There are a lot of bits I do not agree with in your post, regarding psychology versus psychiatry and so on, but this part alone makes me like your post a lot. I tried myself to argue with most constraint a similar point, that 9/11 is not about a terrorist attack but a complete failure on parts of US society all the way through from even way before 9/11, but it is still a topic that even the outwardly most rational people in the US (like certain Science blog audiences) just cannot get their heads around although it is obvious to much of the rest of the world. Humans aren't rational, they rationalize. You seem to have the guts to repel a lot of voters in order to build a reliable base. Good luck with that.
    Tightening gun laws would likely have the same effect as prohibition. I could buy a gun in nyc tomorrow if i wanted to, for less than $300, and new york city has the tightest gun laws in the country.
    Now here you really need to look toward northern Europe and also ponder how likely it is that I even want to buy guns on the black market if not brought up around guns. I am all against prohibition of drugs and the war on drugs, but the gun issue is really not comparable. They do not work the same way - not on the personal user level, not on the drug-cartel level, not on almost any level.

    Anyway - you tell us a lot about what is bad in your posts (warning - depressing your readers even repels the ones on your side - humans are like that!), but very little about constructive solutions. What you write has been written many times before in similar venues that almost nobody looks at. What makes you think that your going into the pseudo-democratic system yourself is going to do anything else but eat you up and make you another efficient cogwheel in a playground evolved to 'abreact' and utilize your revolutionary energy? From an algebraic evolution theoretical standpoint, you merely enter the system's co-evolved protecting buffer zone.
    Ed Chen
    Haha. Good comment! I agree with you on the drug war and would argue us drug laws are unconstitutional in violation of the fourteenth amendment if I'm not mistaken. I think the solution is to have more educated representatives, and to encourage more participation rather than allow the media and Internet to dictate the discourse. In the past people actually goto together and discussed issues in person and then did something about it. There is something to be said about face to face interaction. But would I be chewed up and spit out maybe. That is still to be seen. I hope though you might continue to criticize me. And I will think ofo some concrete policy solutions.
    Gerhard Adam
    If we exclude the bravado often expressed by individuals, we need to consider that killing another human being, is by definition, crazy.  Therefore the term "crazy" doesn't tell us anything.

    We may consider the individual to be irrational, but it is clear that their actions are invariably planned and quite rational, although their reasoning may seem inexplicable.  Even in war, it would be considered crazy if a soldier arbitrarily killed an unarmed enemy.   So we rationalize such killing as being defensive and largely anonymous.  However, an individual that actually kills, will often find that the act itself tends to make them feel crazy too.  Often individuals that are in circumstances where they must kill (to defend themselves or to stop aggression) have a great deal of difficulty if they can directly correlation their actions with the death of another individual (no matter how deserving).

    It takes tremendous psychological will to be a killer and no end of psychological rationalization to avoid truly becoming crazy.  So, as I said previously, killing is naturally the act of a crazy person.

    As a result, to look for a catalyst to such violent actions will always fail.  It is tantamount to asking what actions or pressures by others can make someone crazy.  Is it violent political rhetoric, or the Beatles "Helter Skelter"?  Is there a physiological reason, such as the case of Andrea Yates?  Is it psychological as it was for Ted Bundy? 

    Note that I am not going to consider killing that occurs by accident whether it be drunk driving, or the fear of a nervous robber accidently (either by panic or reflex) shooting his victim.  In those cases, the original intent was not to kill, so despite the result, these individuals aren't crazy in the same sense.

    So, in the end we can't do anything to explain the unexplainable.  Take away guns and we kill with knives.  Take away knives and we'll use clubs.  It doesn't really matter, except in considering how easily the task is accomplished.

    So while it may be reassuring to consider this particular individual "crazy".  We're stuck with the fact that while it may make us feel better to think so, it represents a problem that can never be solved.
    http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

    "...erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance."
    "...kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures."
    "...render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power."
    "...combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation" HAVE YOU BOARDED A PLANE IN THE PAST FIVE YEARS?
    "For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:"
    "For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury" Traffic and IRS courts.
    "Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies"
    "...large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny..." Afghanistan
    "...excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages [Mexicans]... "

    Washington is the confluence of overwhelming ignorance with overweening arrogance, an alphabet soup of criminal clown car incompetence. Reversed stupidity is not intelligence. God save us from the congenitally inconsequential.

    Bullets not ballots.

    Gerhard Adam
    Bullets not ballots.
    Thanks for making my point.
    There is good in everyone as there is bad. People who push people to their limits unleash the bad and may result to horrible acts. Thus, environmental influence play a great role in molding a terrorist, who at first never imagine of becoming one. Whether its vengeance or just plain result of cruelty that begets cruelty,