Bee colonies are collapsing. Nobody is sure of the reason, but sceptics are disdainful of the suggestion that it may be caused by mobile phones - an explanation that is clearly fanciful to those who believe that we live in the best of all possible worlds.
However the mobile phone hypothesis is evidence based. The evidence is here. It is only one paper, and further studies may show no problem, but nevertheless it is a valid area of study.
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Friday, April 20, 2007
Bye bye, American Pie...
More emerges about Cho Seung-Hui: his isolated personality, marked by very strong projection, the possibility of paranoid psychosis, his posturing with guns, and evidence of modelling himself on a violent South Korean film. The film blogs are reacting with denial, some parodying the suggestion that he really modelled himself on that film.
Well look. Our actions are a resultant of a number of forces, including
genetics, social environment, especially early family dynamics, our physical environment (including reactions to food and chemicals), our cognitive structuring and our imaginal life.
OK so far? Lots of factors.
One of the factors is the images we see in films. I wrote in detail about this for Bills of Health .
There was a classical psychological experiment by Bandura in 1965 which modelled the effect of film on behaviour, and many experiments since then that bear out his findings. The problem is, no-one wants to believe it because they think that would entail censorship. Not so. It could just entail the Producer Responsibility Principle. (see above)
Film makers set out to affect their audiences' life experience; so they have to accept that they also affect their behaviour. Which is not to say that the film OldBoy is 100% responsible for what happened, but it has to be a factor. A little factor in the mass audience: maybe a big factor in someone who happens to become fixated with a film. How much of a factor in percentage terms is a matter for debate.
What is not up for debate is the fact that someone with Cho's history of mental illness should not have been able to buy guns. He was able to do so. Well - so much the worse for the American Way, and so much the worse for those who lost loved ones.
Well look. Our actions are a resultant of a number of forces, including
genetics, social environment, especially early family dynamics, our physical environment (including reactions to food and chemicals), our cognitive structuring and our imaginal life.
OK so far? Lots of factors.
One of the factors is the images we see in films. I wrote in detail about this for Bills of Health .
There was a classical psychological experiment by Bandura in 1965 which modelled the effect of film on behaviour, and many experiments since then that bear out his findings. The problem is, no-one wants to believe it because they think that would entail censorship. Not so. It could just entail the Producer Responsibility Principle. (see above)
Film makers set out to affect their audiences' life experience; so they have to accept that they also affect their behaviour. Which is not to say that the film OldBoy is 100% responsible for what happened, but it has to be a factor. A little factor in the mass audience: maybe a big factor in someone who happens to become fixated with a film. How much of a factor in percentage terms is a matter for debate.
What is not up for debate is the fact that someone with Cho's history of mental illness should not have been able to buy guns. He was able to do so. Well - so much the worse for the American Way, and so much the worse for those who lost loved ones.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Virginia Tech Massacre Psychology
What is the psychology of the mass murderer like Cho Seung-hui, the Virginia Tech killer? As a psychiatrist, I ought to know, but I don't. Like anyone else, qualified or otherwise, I can pundificate about social isolation, a sense of grievance, the desire for meaning through notoriety and a desire to control, especially to control the process of death - all of these can be applied, but like all the media commentators and politicians, I am guessing.
What is needed to move from pundification to knowledge is a systematic study of all the spree killers in modern history. There is no lack of data. Virginia 2007, Columbine 1999, Dunblane 1996, Port Arthur 1996, Hungerford 1987, University of Texas 1966, Luby's 1991, South Korea 1982, going back to Bath School 1927, these are just a few samples of the phenomenon of spree killings which is primarily, but not exclusively an American cultural event. Here is a full list of massacres.
To everyone except Americans who allow themselves to be influenced by the National Rifle Association (NRA) it is clear that the easy availability of guns is a factor in these killings. They simply and incontrovertibly provide the opportunity for mass killings, just as carbon monoxide "town" gas provided the opportunity for suicides to gas themselves to death in the days before domestic natural gas. It is of course possible to kill more than one person with a knife, sword, or even a frying pan, but guns give range and efficiency.
However, the NRA seems to have carried the day with its slogan "Guns don't kill, people kill". Actually, it is true that in 99.999% of cases, guns do not kill. It is the bullet that kills, except in those cases where the gun is used as a club. Whatever. If the NRA wants to shift the debate to the people, let's look at the people. As a psychiatrist, I am not aware of any formal studies of spree killers, although that does not mean they are not there. Here is one book: Pan Pantziarka 2000, Lone Wolf, Virgin Publishing ISBN 0-7535-0437-5. This book looks at individual cases, including Thomas Hamilton, Martin Bryant and Mark Barton. It also discusses the wider social context, psychological factors and political fall-out from spree killing. {Wikipedia}
I have not read it, but the title, Lone Wolf, suggests one prominent factor in these killings: their social isolation. A quick check of a sample of the killers mentioned in Wikipedia shows that some, but not all of them were "loners". Some of the others were obsessives, and others were clearly delusional psychotics. Others had personality disorders.
We need an authoritative study, and I will propose this to the Royal College of Psychiatrists. Meanwhile, we need to start thinking about changes to the gun laws - not in America, which is clearly a basket case well beyond the reach of reason, but here in the UK.
A British applicant for a gun licence needs to show the police that (s)he has a good reason to own a gun, and to provide two referees. As a GP I used to be asked, but it no longer has to be a GP. I think the BMA decided it was too risky - what if we OK'd someone, and then they went on to kill? We could be sued.
The referee requirement should be extended to getting signatures of, say, 10 neighbours (defined as living within say 400 yards of the applicant's residence in a town, and five miles or so in the country) in who have no objection to your having a gun (and can certify that they are not being coerced at gunpoint to sign). This requirement would go some way to meet the problem of the "loner" who never speaks to his neighbours.
The other requirement that I suggest would be a psychological profile from a clinical psychologist, designed to screen for psychosis, obsessionality, and personality disorder.
I will put these ideas forward to the Home Office and let you know how I get on.
They are already Green Party policy :
Green Party - Manifesto for a sustainable society - gun control
What is needed to move from pundification to knowledge is a systematic study of all the spree killers in modern history. There is no lack of data. Virginia 2007, Columbine 1999, Dunblane 1996, Port Arthur 1996, Hungerford 1987, University of Texas 1966, Luby's 1991, South Korea 1982, going back to Bath School 1927, these are just a few samples of the phenomenon of spree killings which is primarily, but not exclusively an American cultural event. Here is a full list of massacres.
To everyone except Americans who allow themselves to be influenced by the National Rifle Association (NRA) it is clear that the easy availability of guns is a factor in these killings. They simply and incontrovertibly provide the opportunity for mass killings, just as carbon monoxide "town" gas provided the opportunity for suicides to gas themselves to death in the days before domestic natural gas. It is of course possible to kill more than one person with a knife, sword, or even a frying pan, but guns give range and efficiency.
However, the NRA seems to have carried the day with its slogan "Guns don't kill, people kill". Actually, it is true that in 99.999% of cases, guns do not kill. It is the bullet that kills, except in those cases where the gun is used as a club. Whatever. If the NRA wants to shift the debate to the people, let's look at the people. As a psychiatrist, I am not aware of any formal studies of spree killers, although that does not mean they are not there. Here is one book: Pan Pantziarka 2000, Lone Wolf, Virgin Publishing ISBN 0-7535-0437-5. This book looks at individual cases, including Thomas Hamilton, Martin Bryant and Mark Barton. It also discusses the wider social context, psychological factors and political fall-out from spree killing. {Wikipedia}
I have not read it, but the title, Lone Wolf, suggests one prominent factor in these killings: their social isolation. A quick check of a sample of the killers mentioned in Wikipedia shows that some, but not all of them were "loners". Some of the others were obsessives, and others were clearly delusional psychotics. Others had personality disorders.
We need an authoritative study, and I will propose this to the Royal College of Psychiatrists. Meanwhile, we need to start thinking about changes to the gun laws - not in America, which is clearly a basket case well beyond the reach of reason, but here in the UK.
A British applicant for a gun licence needs to show the police that (s)he has a good reason to own a gun, and to provide two referees. As a GP I used to be asked, but it no longer has to be a GP. I think the BMA decided it was too risky - what if we OK'd someone, and then they went on to kill? We could be sued.
The referee requirement should be extended to getting signatures of, say, 10 neighbours (defined as living within say 400 yards of the applicant's residence in a town, and five miles or so in the country) in who have no objection to your having a gun (and can certify that they are not being coerced at gunpoint to sign). This requirement would go some way to meet the problem of the "loner" who never speaks to his neighbours.
The other requirement that I suggest would be a psychological profile from a clinical psychologist, designed to screen for psychosis, obsessionality, and personality disorder.
I will put these ideas forward to the Home Office and let you know how I get on.
They are already Green Party policy :
a)Applicants should also be required to obtain the signature of, say, ten citizens (just as a prospective electoral candidate) who will vouch for the good character of the licence holder. This will discourage the 'loners' and socially isolated individuals who are most at risk of committing the horror that occurred at Dunblane and Hungerford.
b)The cost of medical and psychological tests must be borne by the applicant, together with a new annual fee which is sufficient to repay the economic damage - to police, court and NHS - inflicted on it by the abuse of guns generally. When licences are awarded the onus will be on the applicant to demonstrate his or her suitability to handle firearms rather than on the authorities to prove the applicant's unsuitability. Licence holders will be required to renew their applications on an annual basis individuals whose licence application is rejected will be required to wait at least two years before re-applying.
Green Party - Manifesto for a sustainable society - gun control
Monday, April 16, 2007
Search Technorati...
...and you may not find what you are looking for. I used the search box (over there on the right, where it says "Technorati search") ofr "Opium" on this blog, and I got nothing. But I knew I had blogged on this, so I searched my backups and found 2 pieces written in February 2006. So Technorati does limited searches, because when I looked up the dates (1st Feb and 28 Feb 2006) I found the blogs.
I had the same problem with my research about al-Zarqarwi (or Zaqarwi). The story is there on 8 June 2006. Only that time Technorati could see the blog, but clicking on the Technorati link got a 404 Page not Found message.
After a lot of emails Google responded with a personalised Don't Know What Happened there message.
I am determined to remain on the CockUp side of the CockUp/Conspiracy divide, but it seems to me that there is a very big cock up inside Google or Technorati somewhere.
I had the same problem with my research about al-Zarqarwi (or Zaqarwi). The story is there on 8 June 2006. Only that time Technorati could see the blog, but clicking on the Technorati link got a 404 Page not Found message.
After a lot of emails Google responded with a personalised Don't Know What Happened there message.
I am determined to remain on the CockUp side of the CockUp/Conspiracy divide, but it seems to me that there is a very big cock up inside Google or Technorati somewhere.
Technorati Blog
I visited Technorati, having searched for Opium in my blog, and they invited me to blog on opium so I wrote this:
The first problem: humans are suckers for anything addictive, in this case, opium and violence.
The second problem: we are, by waging war on drugs, trying to solve one addiction with another.
Third problem: War just creates a better armed and more cunning enemy. Note also that the terrorist favours the drug trade as a source of revenue.
Fourth problem: the war on drugs is ineffective. In fact, not to put too fine a point on it, we are on the losing side.
Now. Then. Let us rethink this issue. If military forces do not work, are there any other forces beginning with M that we can think of? Yes? Yes! Right! Market forces.
And how does that work in this case? Well, the farmer grows the opium. The drug baron/terrorist offers the farmer $100 for his crop. But the UN Office for Drug Control and Crime offers them $110. (Since you ask , this comes from about 0.001% of the cost of trying to fight a War on Drugs). So the farmer sells to UNODC, who sells some of it for pharmaceuticals and the drug dependence programmes, and destroys the rest.
And there, in a nutshell, we have it. Yes there are implemetation details to be worked out, difficulties to be overcome, important people to be persuaded. But we will get there. Eventually. At the end. Because the alternative is expnsive, deadly and ultimately futile.
And it is not just some inconsequential blogger saying this. Read on: http://www.senliscouncil.net/modules/Opium_licensing
The first problem: humans are suckers for anything addictive, in this case, opium and violence.
The second problem: we are, by waging war on drugs, trying to solve one addiction with another.
Third problem: War just creates a better armed and more cunning enemy. Note also that the terrorist favours the drug trade as a source of revenue.
Fourth problem: the war on drugs is ineffective. In fact, not to put too fine a point on it, we are on the losing side.
Now. Then. Let us rethink this issue. If military forces do not work, are there any other forces beginning with M that we can think of? Yes? Yes! Right! Market forces.
And how does that work in this case? Well, the farmer grows the opium. The drug baron/terrorist offers the farmer $100 for his crop. But the UN Office for Drug Control and Crime offers them $110. (Since you ask , this comes from about 0.001% of the cost of trying to fight a War on Drugs). So the farmer sells to UNODC, who sells some of it for pharmaceuticals and the drug dependence programmes, and destroys the rest.
And there, in a nutshell, we have it. Yes there are implemetation details to be worked out, difficulties to be overcome, important people to be persuaded. But we will get there. Eventually. At the end. Because the alternative is expnsive, deadly and ultimately futile.
And it is not just some inconsequential blogger saying this. Read on: http://www.senliscouncil.net/modules/Opium_licensing
Buy Afghan Opium Now. Buy! Buy!
Good news! A think tank, the Senlis Council, http://www.senliscouncil.net/modules/Opium_licensing are proposing poppy licensing. This will decriminalise poppy growing, and allow UN agencies to buy up the whole crop, turning some into medicines, and destroying the rest. Advantages:
1 the poppy growers get to live.
2 addicts in the west get their supplies legitimately, without having to push the drug onto the next generation of victims.
3 criminals and terrorists lose a funding source.
You read it here first: I bloged this idea months ago, but Technorati search cannot pick it up.
1 the poppy growers get to live.
2 addicts in the west get their supplies legitimately, without having to push the drug onto the next generation of victims.
3 criminals and terrorists lose a funding source.
You read it here first: I bloged this idea months ago, but Technorati search cannot pick it up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
