Concerning Abusive and Homicidal Tendencies: People described as having Schizophrenia, Bipolar Conditions, Alcoholism, Drug Addiction, Learning Difficulties are no more likely to have a Homicidal Tendency than the average member of the population. People with these 'problems' come in all shapes and sizes. These 'conditions' may have a dis-inhibiting effect, but the tendency to act out in murderous ways, needs to be there already (and for others reasons). There are many ordinary contributing factors and 'psychosis' is just one of these. Psychopathic, Sociopathic and Homicidal tendencies affect all sectors of society and classes of people, including journalists, social workers, care workers, health care workers, mums, dads, aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters, etc. This will, of course, include some people who experience psychosis (or 'alternative realities') from whatever cause. Professionals, under the pressure of finding quick fixes, are often blinkered into thinking that a single 'diagnosis' represents all the person's presenting problems. If there is an increasing tendency in one group over all others, it is those who attain a significant power, or an official influence, who have the bigger proportion of these features. In fact, it can be demonstrated, through some very convincing evidence, that those who attain 'any' significant 'power', can display disproportionately more 'delusional thinking'. Such people who also display psychopathic and sociopathic tendencies are able to camouflage this characteristic well, with convincing rationales. There is a form of 'ordinary delusion' that is the most dangerous form of 'psychosis'. It is a 'learned' characteristic (largely understood as 'Attitude') which tends to fit-in with increasingly 'delusional' institutions and cultures (any & all cultures), as they justify their more extreme institutional constraints. This is usually a response to the consequences of the progressive failure to adjust to social change, difference, satisfy dissents, contain criticisms, quell social reactions and moderate liberalisation. The Milligam Experiment dramatically show how easy it is to convince ordinary people to proceed with highly abusive actions (towards others), by presenting as 'an expert', or as someone in an 'official capacity'. The higher the credibility and status of the person directing the actions, the greater the compliance by ordinary, intelligent people, voluntarily agreeing to participate in actions that have known negative social consequences. This Status does not have to be very high, just 'convincing'. Scroll down to read text (or Click Here to see text and Videos in full detail, along with useful Psychology references) Taking this a start point in considering 'normality': In most instances of homicide, by people who happen to have a diagnosis of schizophrenia, the 'condition' played no significant part in the assault, or killing. Closer examination of evidence will often indicate that a criminal action is explainable in other human terms; like anger, fear, jealousy, revenge, grudge and violent tendencies, conditioned 'obedience' and for any number of other reasons, present in 'normal' people. It is only on rare occasions that psychosis plays a significant and direct part in physically abusive, or homicidal tendencies. It is more intelligently viewed as sometimes having a contributory influence, a disinhibiting influence, or distorting effect, but more often should be viewed as having a more 'mitigating' effect on already existing tendencies. In the rarer cases where psychosis is associated with 'morbid' jealousy, or 'exaggerated' delusional thinking (more extreme that 'normal' delusions). This has again been a case of oversimplification, on the basis of a single 'clinical' diagnosis. Professionals often set the scene for this kind of misunderstanding. All too often; A simple (& otherwise reasonable) diagnosis, based upon clinical evidence, is used to explain all behaviour and experiences in terms of that diagnosis. This is a big mistake and one that is made too often. It often has profound consequences for the person concerned and for the rest of us. This is an outcome of lazy, often 'legalistic' thinking. The presence of one condition does not exclude the possibility of others, including depressions, anxiety, anger, or even sociopathic and sociopathic behaviour, due to other circumstances, or reasons. As we would say; medical conditions are not usually 'mutually exclusive'. They are certainly not exclusive to the multitude of personality types and the various forms that intelligence can take (and are largely misunderstood in purist psychology). What is more, the diagnosis of schizophrenia is both problematic and often dubious. Misdiagnosis is frequent and appears to be increasing, or at least the recognition of misdiagnosis is increasingly being acknowledged (which is the most likely explanation). Many Psychiatric classifications are very unsound and our blind following of the expert 'edicts' follows the very same 'obedience' errors that are worryingly demonstrated in the 'Milgram' and Zimbardo's 'Stanford Prison' Experiments. My own Operational Research: For over 30 years, I have worked with people who have exhibited 'psychotic' features and associated thinking and behaviours, at some time in their lives. I have usually been able to help them recognise and overcome the problems they experienced; by finding underlying, alternative explanation, for the 'cause' of the problems and 'symptoms' that they had experienced. This has even been possible where the problems are complicated by alcohol & drug problems and learning difficulties. Only where permanent organic damage is contributory to the psychosis, has there been any real resistance to full recovery. Many of these people were originally diagnosed as having schizophrenia and, having substantially recovered, were later recognised, by their psychiatrist, as having been 'misdiagnosed'. The misdiagnosis compounded their problems in many ways, because of the 'expectations and fears' that have become associated with the diagnosis. There is a big enough burden to carry, in having any mental health diagnosis and in surviving its treatment, without the further stigmatisation that such media presentations help create. I describe below (and else where on www.visitweb.org) how this misunderstanding comes about, often through lack of rigorous thinking and unintentionally collusive forms of rationales. The consequences are worrying and seriously impact upon Human Rights. In the main, Legal prerogatives have distorted the purpose of psychiatric diagnosis. These following discussions not only have significance for understanding the relationship to homicide, but many other misconceptions of psychosis, and schizophrenia in particular. To understand the arguments an theory, used to challenge current conventional and psychiatric thinking, it will be necessary to 'suspend' that current thinking and approach the problems from a number of different perspectives. This can be difficult to do, because these fundamental ideas are so well established in our culture and psyche. This makes the task hard work, but can be quite eye opening: I apologise for preaching to the converted, assuming you really are, of course! Uncertainty is a strong feature of considering this subject, because of the slowly changing and 'self reflecting' problem of; What is 'normality'? Normality is not static. Whatever it is, it is certainly dynamic and relative. There appear to be few absolutes. Concerning Public Perceptions of Mental Health: News accounts, linking violence with schizophrenia, pop up from time to time, giving the impression that the condition (in itself) more likely disposes people to kill. The fact that the person killed is often not in dispute, although it can be called into question. It is the explanation for killing that is dubious. Explanation are important to our fuller understanding of homicide; to understand its causes and to consider individual culpability better. This understanding is also important for 'Justice' and for the proper recognition of Human Rights, associated civic responsibilities and institutional accountability. In fact, none of the evidence, including the statistics, suggest any strong link between schizophrenia and aggression, or homicide. All the examples that are quoted in the media can be simply explained in other, more intelligent ways. To understand how this primitive, simplistic and prejudiced kind of thinking arises, you need to take a more anthropological perspective. The true explanation can be difficult for people to swallow. It once more suggests prejudice and relative ignorance, on the part of professionals of all kinds, as well as the general public. If fact, over simplified professional explanations generates this prejudice. A Possible Explanation:
There seems to be a primitive need for people to identify any supposed antisocial behaviour in some kind of 'mystical' way. This is because a largely 'unthinking' population have been indoctrinated to accept 'expert' opinions of various kinds. Sometimes, in many important ways, these experts are right and this can then give unjustified credibility to the extended 'opinions' they and others express. Spurious experts have come in various forms over the years and they are present up until modern times. Right now, in fact. In the absence of an 'expert' (a Guru, Prophet, Soothsayer, Professional, or other credible, instituted leader), social groups, such as a family, tribe, or community, will tend to identify the cause of their woes, in someone who does not generally 'fit in'. They often follow the 'lead' of a particular member of the group, who has identified an 'association' of cause & effect. This leader may put forward a 'barely credible' argument, linking the mere existence of strange behaviour, with previously unexplained events and use this to explain the how & why of the person's behaviour and any associated events. The need for people to have explanation, especially in times of fear, is enough to establish a belief. In some instances these associations, in hindsight, seem ridiculous by modern standards. Some modern 'credible' explanations also appear 'ridiculous' on reflection. We are usually too close to the situation to recognise it. As time goes by these 'belief systems' are replaced by others, hopefully based on more sound evidence, but more importantly; with improved 'logical understanding' of cause and effect. This 'prejudiced', human tendency is actually a distortion of a positive human trait of; 'hypothesise and test'. The History of Beliefs:
In the past, people who were believed to have killed without an apparent earthly purpose, or who have simply been present and behaving oddly when some catastrophic event took place, have either been identified as being 'enlightened', or else 'possessed', or accused of being a 'witch', etc. Sometimes there is some 'commonsense' evidence to support the basic assumption of a link, more often the details of the links identified are circumstantial and largely erroneous. Mostly, it is the attempted explanation that is faulty, or else misplaced in its attempted use, to explain particular circumstance. Sometimes the assumed association & explanation, between the targeted person (or group) and the nature of a corresponding event, is because of the identified person does have an enhanced insight, or else has outspoken views (whether correct or not). Non-the-less, Communities, often reinforced by bogus or naive 'experts', seek to explain 'how & why' some event has happened. They then seek 'evidence' to support their chosen explanation. This has all the character of a self fulfilling prophesy, which produces many of our prejudices. This tendency has not basically changed and is often 'fed' by bits of medical evidence. In this way, explanations for events can be wrong, even though some of the basic observed facts may be reasonably accurate. It is the logic of 'causation' that has failed us. We jump to conclusions on the basis of previous experience, of a similar nature, not realising that there were important differences. This is either because we missed some important information, or did not understand the underlying theory and logic fully. We did not seek to be 'self correcting' as the true 'expert' does (or should). Of curse, a further problem is that these prejudices are so well established they are difficult to challenge. The Development of Expertise:
How accurate and Just any conclusions are, therefore depends upon the competence of those posing as the 'experts'. During these historical periods, much like today, there are those who have caused immeasurable suffering and engaged in murders and tortures, but they remained rational, according to prevailing thinking and may have substantial power, as a result of the propagated misinformation. Some 'leaders' have been revered, some feared, but they are often 'respected', in a significant number of cases. Such is the power of these 'potent' explanations, which reinforce convenient 'projective' prejudices. These general tendencies towards 'beliefs' have not altered. What has changed is the perceptions & understanding of evidence, the quality of logic and the perceived relationships between things. The aspiring expert is still only partly right and the competent expert knows this. In this knowledge they also use their intuition and common sense. They do so to check out all the circumstances surrounding what they observe and the logic by which they judge events in the future. They are interested in looking for the exceptions which test the rules, rather the other exceptions that conveniently prove them right. In many ways this competence of the true expert is a combination of inherent skills, critically accumulated knowledge and a matured ways of thinking. What we used to call wisdom. Unfortunately, most people only pick up on the more 'obvious' and draw conclusions from the evidence that they are looking for. No surprises; they see what they are looking for and use the 'experts' general statements to support their case. Their 'references' to the experts are often over generalised and often faulty. What is more, even learned 'vocational' institutions often encourage this uncritical thinking. The Development of Ignorance:
From this point on, what people think and do, coupled with the added evidence of the natural reaction of the accused, colours and often reinforces, the false perceptions. The distorted logic feels so credible and holds up until the errors in thinking are pointed out. At this point another human characteristic comes into play. The need for certainty induces a 'deluded' state. People convince themselves they know what the expert knew and apply their mistaken understanding to all manner of other circumstances that are not covered by the original idea, or theory. They become neo-experts. Some 'followers' seek true enlightenment, as they say. Some succeed, by virtue of their established apprenticeship, but many do not really understand the fundamentals; the wider context within which the knowledge must be considered. That is in the nature of both knowledge and of wisdom. A little more worrying: Which of these 'Experts' are followers of such a misinformed but credible 'Neo-expert'? Thankfully, any resulting failure to gain credibility is a blessing, whereas an apparent success can takemany people down a false path, compounding misperceptions and misunderstandings. Understanding psychosis is such a case. This is the situation in relation to the misunderstanding we started with, and many others of a similar ilk. A true expert would have sought to separate out the various themes involved in the complex problem, recognised each for their separate contribution and then seek to understand any interrelationships between these themes. One possible scenario is that the normal balance of inhibitions versus inclination towards homicide are significantly disrupted by a psychosis. Is this the case here? It may be, but it should not be assumed to be the case, other explanations are more credible, once considered properly. The point is here; credible explanations alone do not make general theories. Simple Understanding of Complexity:
If psychosis is judged to have had an influence in homicide, then we must also appreciate that psychosis is a manifestation of various inherited, social and other environmental influences, with their complex interaction, or, arises by virtue of clearly identified organic damage, with associated correlated features. In whichever case, this will ether have the effect of disrupting natural survival instincts, making homicidal tendencies less potent and more ineffectual, OR disrupt the 'inhibitions' to homicide, in which case an inclination towards homicide may then be less suppressed and more likely. Either could be the case. In the latter case it is other influences that drove thinking & behaviour. That said, the resulting exhibitions of psychosis will also tend to be quite obvious and render the more calculated and deceitful inclinations of homicide, less effective (except by some accident of the victim's naivety). People in a psychotic state (schizophrenic in character, or otherwise) are usually in a disturbed, paranoid, or excited state which would provide a clear warning to others, of even accidental consequences of agitated and panicked behaviour. This is how a level of 'fear' of the unknown can be helpful. Fear is designed as an 'emergency' response to known and unknown threats. The ability to 'plan' any competent homicide in 'schizophrenic state' is almost impossible. If such capability is shown to exist, then the person clearly does not have schizophrenia, by any diagnostic tool that is in use. It is a misdiagnosis, which is more than possible, given the frequency of this error. Psychotic states may, as we have agreed, sometimes make inclination stronger but it also makes competent planning and perpetration of violence less competent. Any injury if more likely to be the 'accidental' result of naive or abusive interventions, or relationship breakdown, as is the case with us, alleged 'normals'. The main risk left to consider, is the spontaneous, 'paranoid' reaction, which has the same potential to injure as any other panic reaction. In the case of 'psychosis' the main concern associated with aggression is one of the unpredictability. This feature is actually experienced in most cases of homicide where deception, alcohol, drugs and fear are involved. It is not exclusive to psychosis proper, except in as much that we may assess these other contributions to be exhibited as 'paranoid'. In fact, many 'paranoid' states are temporarily induced by alcohol, drugs, abuse and trauma, frequently misdiagnosed and entrenched by a diagnosis of schizophrenia. And so, Back to our original problem:
So you see: People described as having Schizophrenia, Alcoholism, Drug Addiction, Learning Difficulties are no more likely to have an effective Homicidal tendency than the average member of the population. People with 'problems' come in all shapes and sizes. Psychopathic, Sociopathic and homicidal tendencies affect all sectors and classes, including Journalists and other people with psychosis (alternative realities) from whatever cause. Disinhibited homicidal tendencies are largely independent of psychosis. The general tendency towards being homicidal, and the spasmodic tendency for anyone to engage in homicide, is best considered as a separate dimension of human capability and inclination. Having done that, we can consider the other factors that may influence the promotion &/or the inhibition of this more universal feature. It is my contention that we all have this biological aggressive / defensive propensity, moderated by social propensity and our particular features of socialisation. Concerning homicide: This inclination is within most of us, as a potential feature of a survival traits. Like so many human behavioural features, the level at which this disposition is triggered will be affected by many factors, including; genetic disposition, moderated by effective socialisation; general and social skills learning, the balance of positive and negative experience and the general circumstances surrounding us; and the resources available to us, as informed alternatives to homicide: i.e. Legal redress, respects for human rights, and a 'sense' of Justice & Reconciliation. This is why societies have recognised the need to 'justice' as a means of 'preventing' more primitive, reactive behaviours. There are other features that can be argued to have an effect, including complex influences, like indoctrination, provocation, desensitization and general mental ill health, but these can reasonably be considered to be more extreme examples of the features previously described. The point is; we have to be less 'reactive' and more 'proactive'. Fear as an emergency reaction to the unknown and unpredictable, is understandable. Maintaining and feeding our Fears, as the basis for projecting all our incompetence's and ill-fortune, upon some unfortunate group, who sometimes react to the injustice they experience, is prejudice. Further examples of these kinds of prejudices, as heard expressed by professionals (as well as ordinary members of the public): 'What can you expect from people in Social Housing' (a double barrelled prejudice - generalisation + lack of insight into deprivation); 'It is just another excuse for Immigrants to come over here and take our jobs / homes / women' (we went over there and took their land, birthright and freedom); 'Anger and violence are unacceptable, not everyone who has had a bad time resorts to violence' (True; some are so crushed by their abusive and neglectful experiences they self harm, or break down. A few act out, for themselves and others). Fear, Aggression and Psychosis: Taking schizophrenia as our starting point: This is a complex category of a simple classification system, based upon behavioural evidence, including verbal expressions of thoughts. Such evidence supports a simple scientific classification system with little, if any, material evidence, or cohesive set of hypotheses to support it. As a classification system it does have value; as a predictive behavioural schema it can be helpful, but as a means of deriving theory, it is severely limited and contextually biased. Put more simply, with just a little humour: The tendency towards fearing the assumed, potentially more effective and stronger inclination for violence and homicide, in people who have a serious & disabling psychosis, is somewhat paranoid and irrational. The fact is, the 'fear reaction' to the poor understanding of psychosis, is more likely to be seen as an 'aggressive act' and therefore generate a more aggressive reaction, from anyone. Assertive interventions are aggressive acts and risk generating normal fear reactions. Being made to take, or do something we don't want to do makes us very angry. It is commonly recognised that 'fearful' behaviour is often mistaken for aggression, especially where the 'fear' is mutual. Many of the behavioural signs and symptoms, are the same. In fact, it has been established as a wisdom, by competent experts, over millennia, that the presentation of paranoia and other psychotic like features, are the result of persistent intimidation and deception. Trust building is an essential part of engaging distressed people, with any problem that makes them distrusting. The only beneficial interventions are gentle, affectionate and devoid of fear. On the basis of this same expert wisdom, it has been generally agreed that the best way to engage with anyone who is paranoid and otherwise presenting in a psychotic way, it to do so with confident calm and show no signs of fear. I have practice in this way for nearly 40 years and have never been assaulted by anyone with a psychosis and the only minor assaulted I experienced, was by someone without psychosis. I have had a small handful of staff who did not listen to my advices and 'over asserted' in their involvement with clients with psychosis and they were assaulted twice (They learned their lesson). By contrast, while engaged in other life and other employment activities, I have been psychologically and physically bullied, abused and assaulted, by people without a psychiatric diagnosis, or signs of psychosis. The bullying and assaults at school was seen as 'normal'. The bullying in Adulthood was from individuals, managers and employers who believed they were right to assert their opinionated methods on others. The physical assaults in adulthood were by aggressive sociopaths, because I refused to give in to intimidation, or had intervened in an assault on another person. Other assaults were from people who enjoyed getting drunk, and in their disinhibited state, chose to physically intimidate and assault others. On the basis of my own experience and drawing on these simple wisdoms: Psychosis can reasonably be explained (in all but the most extreme 'organic' circumstances) to be the result of repeated externally generated confounding fears and misinformation (mostly lies & projection), which have been internalised, to the point where they present as paranoia, which then distorts previously established, understood and trusted, cause and effect relationships. Most Psychotic experiences and behavioural presentations are 'Reactive', including those exhibited by many people who have been diagnosed as having schizophrenia. It is often previously compounded, distressing and fearful experiences, unresolved by justice, or through corrective, or compensatory experiences, which results in a person feeling seriously threatened in some way. This is what can ultimately results in violent, homicidal acts. These same experiences are common to those which can generate many forms of 'induced' psychosis (most psychosis is 'generated' in this way, especially 'paranoia'). These two developing problems actually run in parallel, and so is is possible to have homicides by people with a a psychosis, which is not actually 'caused' by the psychosis. This explanation does not consider all homicidal tendencies, only the 'reactive' tendency (which approximates to 'normal'). On the other hand, the same psycho-social explanation does explain the development of the vast majority of psychoses, prior to their inappropriate treatment and management. There are, of course, other forms of aggression and homicide, which I am not aspiring to become 'expert' in. These are those associated with what are often called 'personality disorders', 'sociopathy' and 'psychopathy'. These are not identifiable as schizophrenia and seem to be incompatible with it. These other abusive, aggressive and homicidal tendencies, may well have been triggered by similar early experiences, but at some point the person appears to have taken a decision to act in this abusive way, act without sensitivity to consequences of their actions, or for the purpose of abusive gratification. They engage in abusive and aggressive actions, aware of the consequences, for no reason of 'defence', or agitated reaction to provoking experiences, to satisfy wholly selfish objectives. These are the abusers who generate the 'reactive' psychoses and many other distressed that people experience. Part of a Bigger Picture:
Not all these abusive behaviours results in homicide. Some result in personal & social distress, mental ill health (including psychosis) and suicide. The important point is, we are focusing on the wrong perpetrators here. Whether it is by direct effect, or by virtue of the personal and social consequence of their behaviour; It is rational, calculating, intellectually prejudice, confident and strongly asserting people, who cause most of the injustice and often perpetrate many of the 'hidden' crimes and injustices. What we might call 'stiff collar' prejudices. Powerful intellect, like electricity, can be used to kill, or to cure. The intellectuals thereby generate the social reactions which they then describe as being caused by 'lack of intelligence', 'organic psychosis', 'weak morals', 'cultural inferiority', 'lack of moral fibre', etc. We all know the arguments, and project & delude ourselves at times. Some of these perpetrators are clearly 'sociopathic', others are indifferent, still others are misguided and deluded by their own expertise & skill. Others try to fit in to mitigate the social effects and are 'trained' to understand and accept these biases. The only reason a sociopath would be reading at this point is to forward plan their abusive responses. Some make our careers out of it; in health care, social care, police and the legal system. Others utilise and distort these skills and insights, within education, housing, civil service, political and advocacy careers. It all sounds so negative and hopeless. The point is, the only way to avoid 'being' prejudiced and generating injustice, is to recognise our own and others prejudices and mitigate against their effects. Again, the only inhibition to this is fear; fear of being judged accused and abused, by these same powerful forces. This has all the character of 'The Bully'; Rule by fear of being being seen to be different. We can not keep locking up (in special hospitals and prisons) and otherwise disenfranchising the increasing numbers of people, who react in antisocial, distressed, or distressing ways. It costs an absolute fortune and generates massive resentment. Rather than punishing people for our sins and projecting onto others (in various ways) our own fears and failures, we have to acknowledge and 'repair' the damage done to others, wherever that is possible. Not for political reasons, not for moral reasons. For 'social survival'. Some small proportion of the damage is primarily organic and resistant to resolution but most is 'reactive' in character and open to repair and genuine reconciliation. This is the area where we can do something about it; by applying the same intelligence that we use to abuse others. Like so many who have famously experienced prejudice and abuse; they are not weak; they are strong. It is often their moral strength and honesty that generates the fear in others, which then results in abuse and prejudice they experience. It is an endemic problem; burst a boil on the surface and the infection spreads through the fabric and pops up as another infestation of prejudice else where. Like so often in the history of injustice it is not the broken bones, bruises and death which causes the most hurt. It is the bullying, head games, humiliation, disempowerment and alienation which causes the hidden distress, which then generates waves of mini revolutions upon which other abusive people can take the opportunity to surf, along with the justly angry. We have to stop feeding this momentum and disenfranchise the truly ignorant: These are those who intellectually project their social incompetence and fears onto others and delude themselves into believing (and convincing others) that the cause of all their wows are due to some newly, identified group, or some poor devil in their charge. They are more culpable for their rationalised actions than the abusive drunk who irrationally lashes out with a bottle and causes a physical scar, or death. Their perpetrations are bad enough, but affect only those the have direct contact with. The intellectual & emotional Bully can affect many people they never touch and cause damage that can last for generations. We need to get our priorities right and think more rigorously about the true nature of cause and effect. Science is a wonderful and enlightening discipline. Stick to its simple rules and apply its fundamental principles in the search for truth. If you feel you can not do this, return to the realm of mysticism from which you came and compete with the wealth of true alternative and quasi-alternative explanations for experience from which we can 'choose' our selection from the menu on offer. Stop the amateur social experiments of people Einstein was right. All things in the universe a 'relative'. So are our perspective on the social universe. He had the good sense to be concerned about the application of the knowledge that he helped put into this 'relative' social domain. In Einstein's alleged words, discovered by a Social Work colleague and dear friend of mine, who like me discover the relative nature of social work, as a child: "Only two things are Infinite; 'The Universe' and 'Human Stupidity'; and I am not too sure about the former" | Please note that the presence of adverts does not constitute a recommendation.
If you are unhappy with any particular advert, please notify me: Terry@visitweb.org
EDITORIAL: Hypnosis can help!
Self Suggestion, or
Self-hypnosis. This is a very useful Site with lots of free Guidence: 'Hypnosis Downloads'
|
|
