Banner
    Sorry sociologists, Arizona shooter Jared Loughner did not watch Fox News
    By Hank Campbell | January 12th 2011 02:15 PM | 10 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    About Hank

    I'm the founder of Science 2.0® and co-author of "Science Left Behind".

    A wise man once said Darwin had the greatest idea anyone...

    View Hank's Profile
    Sociologists love when people get shot; it gives them a chance to make correlation/causation arrows go in all kinds of crazy directions.

    So when people jumped on the gun rage by Jared Loughner as a product of the Tea Party or a climate of hate or whatever they wanted to call it, they easily found someone in sociology to back them up on it.   

    It must be extremism or something else that he got from listening to Rush Limbaugh or watching Fox News, right?   Unless it is just some crazy guy shooting people.    Mapping events to a cultural topology or a social agenda is not science - not even social science - it is plain old superstition.

    On U.S. morning television show "Good Morning America", they interviewed Loughner's friend Zach Osler:
    He did not watch TV. He disliked the news. He didn’t listen to political radio. He didn’t take sides. He wasn’t on the left. He wasn’t on the right.
    He was just nuts.   There is no hidden subtext to it.   No social engineering that can cure it.   But look for a subset of Congress who has long desired to squash rightwing talk radio by mandating leftwing radio no one will want to listen to to renew efforts for a 'fairness doctrine' that is anything but fair.




    Comments

    Gerhard Adam
    Couldn't we just squash right-wing talk radio because they're crazy too?
    Hank,
    Do you think that way to make correlations is inherited from our far away ancestors ? Is that possible that it took parts of our survival primitive instinc ?

    Could be because "human kind cannot bear very much reality."

    This is funny to see how few the humans have not change since milleniums. Before, big mouthes went to public spaces, churches and temples to gather crowds with their half-lies who had the quality to inflame the imaginations of the crowds... Devil's advocates against the righter of wrongs...

    Today, demagogies are propageted by medias, Internet and people gathered into discussion forums who look like more as circles of conviction than agoras where participants used to speak freely...

    rholley
    This quote, from The Fabricated Luther by Uwe Siemon-Netto, may shed some light on the mentality of certain commentators:

    Similarly, clichés may be used in multiple ways, reflecting a variety of vested interests. Let us consider three purposes of the stereotype that will be developed in the following chapter – the cliché that Luther was somehow responsible for the Germans’ subservience to Hitler:
     
     * * * * * * *

    3. Thomas Mann’s reasons may have resembled those of certain contemporary Americans castigating the United States: By pointing to the dark side in the national character of their own people, they appear to shoulder that burden; yet in reality, in recognizing those faults, they absolve themselves and become good guys.
    It’s the “I wanna be the good guy” factor that I’m particularly pointing to.

    While we’re on a science blog, here’s something from the same book about some young physicists.
    Ulbricht’s barbaric act (destroying the church containing Bach’s favourite organ) , committed before the eyes of tens of thousands of weeping Leipzigers, had almost immediate consequences.  Twenty days later, an international Bach festival took place in the Congress Hall next to Leipzig’s famed zoo.  Suddenly, in the presence of hundreds of musicians and music lovers from all over the world, an automatic mechanism unrolled a huge yellow banner showing the contours of the murdered church flanked by the dates of its consecration and its death (1240–1968) plus the inscription Wir fordern Wiederaufbau (“We demand reconstruction”).  The authors of this act of defiance were five young physicists and physics students.  They were captured and imprisoned.  But many of their sympathizers throughout Leipzig and the GDR formed the nucleus of a protest movement that slowly snowballed into the avalanche that swept away Communism two decades later.
    Robert H. Olley Quondam Physics Department University of Reading England
    Gerhard Adam
    Actually a question that bears considering is what differentiates someone that's crazy from someone that's crazy about their ideas?

    In other words, can we make a reasonable argument that many of the extremists that we see today that participate in terrorism are just as crazy as this guy?  Why should adhering to an extreme political or religious view, make these people more "legitimate" than someone that just goes off at random?

    Admittedly, we might argue that at least such extremists may have a catalyst or issue that drives them to commit their acts, but are they actually any less crazy?

    Certainly there are a variety of ways to interpret such events, but in the end, simply saying "crazy" doesn't provide much of an answer.  Whatever the reason and however irrational it might be, this individual also had a "reason" for taking the actions he did.  He certainly didn't think the weapon he was using was a toy or a magic wand.  He certainly realized that he was shooting at real people. 

    After all, what separates someone that simply hears voices or demons, from someone that thinks God is talking to him? 

    rholley
    Gerhard,

    I think that G.K.Chesterton saw something of this.  Here is an extract from chapter 2 The Maniac, from Orthodoxy (1908).

    The last thing that can be said of a lunatic is that his actions are causeless. If any human acts may loosely be called causeless, they are the minor acts of a healthy man; whistling as he walks; slashing the grass with a stick; kicking his heels or rubbing his hands. It is the happy man who does the useless things; the sick man is not strong enough to be idle. It is exactly such careless and causeless actions that the madman could never understand; for the madman (like the determinist) generally sees too much cause in everything. The madman would read a conspiratorial significance into those empty activities. He would think that the lopping of the grass was an attack on private property. He would think that the kicking of the heels was a signal to an accomplice. If the madman could for an instant become careless, he would become sane. Every one who has had the misfortune to talk with people in the heart or on the edge of mental disorder, knows that their most sinister quality is a horrible clarity of detail; a connecting of one thing with another in a map more elaborate than a maze. If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment. He is not hampered by a sense of humour or by charity, or by the dumb certainties of experience. He is the more logical for losing certain sane affections. Indeed, the common phrase for insanity is in this respect a misleading one. The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason.

    The madman's explanation of a thing is always complete, and often in a purely rational sense satisfactory. Or, to speak more strictly, the insane explanation, if not conclusive, is at least unanswerable; this may be observed specially in the two or three commonest kinds of madness. If a man says (for instance) that men have a conspiracy against him, you cannot dispute it except by saying that all the men deny that they are conspirators; which is exactly what conspirators would do. His explanation covers the facts as much as yours. Or if a man says that he is the rightful King of England, it is no complete answer to say that the existing authorities call him mad; for if he were King of England that might be the wisest thing for the existing authorities to do. Or if a man says that he is Jesus Christ, it is no answer to tell him that the world denies his divinity; for the world denied Christ's.
    Robert H. Olley Quondam Physics Department University of Reading England
    Gerhard Adam
    Absolutely.  Thanks for reminding me about that.  It offers an excellent perspective on the precise point I was trying to make.
    Sources? Which "sociologists" say what you claim they said? Or do you mean sociologist in a more general "people who say things that are wrong must secretly be sociologists " way?

    Sociologists love when people get shot; it gives them a chance to make correlation/causation arrows go in all kinds of crazy directions.

    Talk about crazy claims...

    rholley
    I think here we have an example of the “meejer” (as we pronounce it over here) exaggerating, or even over-exaggerating the importance of the “meejer”.

    A chronic manifestation of this is the way that chat shows seems to operate on the principle that what we all most want to hear is the opinions of film and television personalities, whereas one would probably get much more sense and wit out of a certain white teddy bear.

    My biggest bugbear is films about film stars, exacerbated when these productions are nominated for an Academy Award.  Such things can most saliently be described as (if you will pardon the oxymoron) exercises in group masturbation.
    Robert H. Olley Quondam Physics Department University of Reading England