This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
In other words, the only thing that makes this psychosis is that she wanted to kill her kids? Then what distinguishes her 'psychosis' from any other criminal's desire to do evil? If I killed someone in a crime of passion, what stops me from claiming it was a temporary 'psychosis'? I really can't see the distinction here.
It's a complicated construct but if you pick at it makes more sense. There isn't a rational reason to do this in the way she did. Most people just leave their kids or abandon them. Maybe you frame the husband. She slowly and intimately slaughtered her children making no effort to protect herself from the ramifications of her actions and with no clear gain (see: serial killers and sexual gratification, sicarios and money and fame).
This strongly points to something like altruistic filicide. She thought they were better off dead and that it was the right thing to do. That's pure madness.
In the case of a crime of passion you know what you were doing is wrong, if you try and pretend you were briefly randomly psychotic you'll get "by what mechanism" "oh so you chose to do drugs knowing that drugs are illegal and bad."
The crime to some extent does point to madness being an explainer.
Except these days it's trivial to get prescribed drugs from a doctor, which you can then use as an excuse.
I'm more open to the psychosis explanation than most people here, but I feel like "the experts" are on shaky ground on the issue, and are pulling a "trust me, bro".
The experts in this case (both testifying and misc. people commenting) are essentially the people in the legal system/healthcare whose specific job is to tell if people are full of shit. The field has well developed and researched things like forensic inventories that are designed to catch people who exaggerate or mislead about their symptoms. These tools are not readily available online for the obvious reasons, but to give an example of the kind of thing you would do - if someone is pretending to have cognitive deficits to avoid blame you can ask them a question that even someone with severe retardation or dementia can answer like "what's 2+2." Anyone who can't answer that is going to be highly suspicious. The actual assessment is going to be a much more robust and complicated elaboration on that sort of concept.
It's also going to involve actual exposure to similar cases, knowledge of the criminal profiles involved (what does narcissistic family annihilation actually look, how does it contrast with borderline, suicidal, and so on).
The field has some limitations of course but doctors are doing this every day all over the country and it works fine and is a standard part of the legal system.
How many murderers have you actually met? I've treated hundreds and I'm not even a forensic psychiatrist - and even with that caveat I could guess the type of crime sometimes from doing my unrelated business. Resnick has probably evaluated 1,000s of killers and he's made a career out of sorting them and even wrote the book on it.
I'm not 100% convinced of the argument but I do have enough information to understand that expertise can exist on these matters and I'm seeing a bunch line up in a certain way...
You can say the same thing about transgender healthcare, that doesn't mean it rests on sound assumptions. Everything you said here only reinforces my impression that this is more of an art than a science, and the whole thing is based on trust, which I don't have a lot to spare at the moment.
This in particular sounds like the whole thing rests on "the experts" having 20-30 IQ points on the people they're investigating, and being reasonably confident they'll be doing the manipulating, rather than being manipulated. I don't think that's a reasonable assumption here, and I'm really not seeing anything that's supposed to catch this case in particular.
I tend to agree with this, but I would worry there's another issue in play, which is that some of these "experts" may have political beliefs and/or tribal alliances which color their judgment. For example, a lot of women with advanced degrees in the social sciences are feminists, i.e. they subscribe to an ideology with a strong tendency to see men as the source of all evil and women as innocent victims. If she were evaluating another woman accused of wrongdoing, I would not trust such a woman to act in an unbiased way.
More options
Context Copy link
Come on now, for forensic evaluations to exist in court without being torn about by the defense they need to have paid attention to things like inter-rater reliability. Check out the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) as an example.
Also, as I've said elsewhere - I am not an expert on postpartum psychosis, but I've seen phsyciains who have seen a bunch of PPP go "yes that this is what it looks like sometimes, thank god my patient didn't do anything this bad." Having exposure to the actual patient population with these disease should mean something.
I wrote elsewhere in one of the chains on the transgender thing, but it's more driven into medicine than out of and from medicine.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I've not paid close attention to the trial but surely she could possess a rational rage toward her children for dashing her hopes and dreams of being an international superstar, superspy, or some other path incompatible with being a responsible mother of three.
Absolutely but what do people with those types of feelings do? They lash out impulsively crashing their car. They grab a weapon at hand and do something. Most commonly they attack the husband.
The mixture of poor/irrational planning and premeditation supposedly leans towards this kind of pathology.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
She "gains" the ability to die knowing no one will be able to take care of her children better than she did, and they will never love someone else more than her.
I do think she's mad, you don't kill your kids and try to kill yourself because you're mentally well, but being unwell enough to think your kids are better off dead isn't the same as not knowing that killing them is illegal, which is what the insanity defense is meant to cover.
This is true but you've already narrowed the solution space down quite a bit once you are talking about this from every motivation in the world to a much smaller subset with a higher percentage of possible explanations involving type of illness the insanity defense applies to.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Your question answers itself (emphasis mine).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link