vincentML
Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
Your reasoning is absolutist and ass backwards. Pure nonsense. Not all violent offenders are psychopathic and not all psychopaths are violent offenders, for example.
It is more logical to say that if a person is so tortured by a mental disorder that he becomes a spree killer it is reasonable to identify others with a similar mental disorder for treatment, and it is reasonable to seek a more efficacious regimen.
You have your head up your ass when you consider 30% of the population will suffer mental illness in their life time. Let me repeat 30% That many makes mental illness normal and mass murder is not normal so where is the correlation?
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
Or the "error" may be due to Epistemic Uncertainty which includes limits of measurement, insufficient data, and the limits of bell curve probability to account for the Black Swan event.
You are obviously married to the idea that people who are mentally ill are mad bad and dangerous but most killers are clinically sane, even mass murderers so your hypothesis has a gaping hole in it to start with.
Firstly, mass murderers are clinically sane? WTF? How do you know that? Many committed suicide. Did they leave you a note proclaiming their clinical sanity?
Secondly, you once again have the premise ass backwards. Nowhere did I say the mentally ill are mad, bad and dangerous. I said the mass killers are mentally ill. Please try to keep straight the main premise. FFS!!
Let me show you what I mean by epistemic uncertainty ~ black swan events. And let's use your figure of 30% mentally ill. For the sake of this exercise we will assume equal distribution between males and females.
Here is a gallery of the top 20 US spree killers. One was younger than 14 and one was older than 50. For simplicity let's cut the age group off at 15 to 44, where most of them fall. Since they are all males we will use a figure of 15% incidence of mental illness. Half your number.
The US Census for 2010 recorded a population of males between ages 15 and 44 as 63,387,000.
15% of that male population is 9,508,050 individuals with mental illness. My presumption is that these 20 spree killers came from that population of 9.5 million, to leave out the calculus necessary to determine Census figures for each year a crime was committed.
What are the probabilities of those 20 spree killings happening? Do the math. It comes out to 0.00021%
Somewhat higher if we adjust the male populations for years of incidents, but not enough to show up on the Gaussian Curve of Normal Distribution except way the fuck out on the tail. What was your term? "statistical error." Statistical error, my ass! These were real events for which the bell curve could not account. You are using 19th Century probability statistics.
These events are highly improbable but highly impactful when they occur. Statistics fail. That is why genetic studies with vastly improving techniques are justified.
< Message edited by vincentML -- 1/5/2013 10:46:24 AM >
|
RE: Sorting Adam Lanza's Genome For Clues - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread